75le 

H323 


P  Q 

1439 

B25 

H3 

1905 

MAIN 


Digitized  &y  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/comparativestudyOOharrrich 


A  Comparative  Study  of 
the  Aesopic  Fable 


m 


Nicole  Bozon 


A  Dissertation  Submitted  to  the  Board  of   University 

Studies   of   the   Johns  Hopkins   University  in 

Conformity  with  the  Requirements  for 

the   Deg-ree   of   Doctor   of 

Philosophy. 


hy 
PHILIP  WARNER   HARRY 


1903 


Excerpts  from  the  above  printed  in  accordance  with  the  regulations 
of  the  University. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


J^ 


■\j  PAGE 

Introductory 5 

a.     Account  of  the  Sources  of  the  Fables 6 

d.     Difficulties  of  the  Subject 10 

c.  Plan  of  the  Work 11 

d.  Scheme  of  Fable  Collections 13 

e.  Comparative  Table  of  Versions 15 

/.     Objects  of  Investigations 16 

Sources  of  the  Individual. Fables 17 

a.     Fables  Derived  from  Marie  de  France  or 

a  Common  Source 17 

Conclusion  71 

Bibliography 74 

a.     Original  Texts 74 

d.     Editions  and  Studies 78 

c.  Manuscripts 82 

d.  Biographical  Notices 82 

a.     Reviews  83 


144012 


OfTHI 

VNfVERSITY 

INTRODUCTORY. 


In  the  year  1889,  the  Sociite  des  Anciens  Textes 
Frangais  published  a  book  entitled  Les  Contes  Moralises 
de  Nicole  Bozon^  edited  by  Paul  Meyer  in  collaboration 
with  Miss  P.  Toulmin  Smiths 

These  contes  of  Bozon,  which  were  discovered  by 
M.  Meyer  in  the  course  of  his  researches  in  the  libraries 
of  England,  have  been,  on  account  of  their  character, 
the  subject  of  some  discussion  among-  students  of  fable 
literature  during  the  past  several  years. 

Nicole  Bozon  was  a  preacher,  a  frhre  mineur^  who 
wrote  both  in  prose  and  in  verse.  His  prose  works  are 
by  far  the  more  important.  These  consist  of  a  series  of 
short  sermons  which  are  in  reality  little  more  than  a 
collection  of  exemfla;  that  is,  of  stories  real  or  ficti- 
tious, followed  by  a  moral  application.  At  the  time 
when  Bozon  wrote,  the  authors  of  sermons  had  the  cus- 
tom, without  doubt  in  order  to  render  their  homilies 
more  attractive,  of  interspersing  them  with  anecdotes 
of  various  sorts,  to  which  they  gave  the  general  name 
of  parables.  Instruction  through  such  parables  is  a 
practice  dating  from  remote  antiquity  ;  preachers  were 
induced  to  adopt  this  method,  not  so  much  for  the  sake 
of  illustrating  their  discourses,  as  making  a  lasting  im- 
pression on  the  minds  of  their  illiterate  hearers.  Boz- 
on's  prose  works  are  full  of  such  exemfla^  and  many  of 
them  are  extremelj^  interesting  from  a  number  of  points 
of  view. 

The  special  features  of  the  work  in  question  may  be 
considered  to  belong  to  three  general  classes,  distin- 
guished as  follows:  (1)  Pacts  of  Natural  History; 
(2)  Tales  ;  (3)  Fables.  ^ 


Ives  Contes  Moralises  de  Nicole  Bozon  (Soci^t^  des  Anciens 
Textes  Frangais,  1889),  Paris,  1889. 


The  purpose  of  this  dissertation  is  to  discover,  if 
possible,  to  what  collection  (or  collections)  of  fables 
Bozon  had  access,  as  well  as  to  discuss  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  fables  contained  in  the  work  of  our  author. 

Th^re  are  several  features  that  distingnish  the 
fables  found  in  Bozon  from  those  occurring  in  works  of 
a  similar  character,  and  that  make  them  worthy  of 
serious  study.  In  the  fiist  place,  some  of  his  fables  end 
with  English  verses  or  an  English  proverb^.  The  end- 
ing of  a  fable  with  English  verses  was  not  at  all  uncom- 
mon among  Bozon's  contemporaries^,  but  those  occur- 
ring in  his  fables  are  of  especial  interest  as  probably 
indicating  an  English  source  for  the  fables  in  question. 

A  second  noteworthy  feature  in  certain  fables  of 
our  author  is  the  occurrence  in  the  body  of  the  text  of 
what  appear  to  be  the  dihris  of  French  verses*.  This 
characteristic  is  so  evident  in  the  case  of  one  fable  that 
the  editors  have  printed  nearly  the  whole  of  it  in  verse 
form^. 

A  third  characteristic  peculiar  to  Bozon  is  the  large 
proportion  of  fables  which  occur  in  his  work  only. 
Whether  these  were  actually  invented  by  our  author 
himself,  or  whether  he  derived  them  from  sources  which 
have  not  come  down  to  us  as  far  as  known,  is  a  question 
which  can  not  be  definitely  settled. 

a,     ACCOUNT  OF  THK  SOURCES  OF  THK  FABLKS. 

In  a  collection  of  notes  which  follow  the  text  of  the 
conies^  the  editor  has  sought,  wherever  possible,  to  note 
the  source  on  which  Bozon  drew  for  each  fable.  Here 
are  his  results :  Of  the  thirty-nine  fables^  which  he 
has  discussed,  he  is  sure  of  having  discovered  the  orig- 
inal source  of  only  five  fables  (fables  5,  7,  16,  28  from 
Odo  of  Sherington;    fable  32  from  Marie  de  France); 


2.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  parag^raphs  14,  17,  34,  121,  128. 

3.  Cf .  numerous  examples  in  Thomas  Wrig-ht's  lyatin  Stories. 

4.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  par.  28,  30,  32,  56,  120,  121,  129,  135. 

5.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  par.  135. 

6.  Two  fables  are  omitted   in  the  table  (p.  XVII),  but  are 

mentioned  on  pag-e  XIX  and  in  the  notes. 


for  seven  others  (fables  47,  61,  75,  91,  94,  130,  142)  he 
has  indicated  the  probable  source.  In  these  seven  cases 
M.  Meyer  holds  it  as  necessary  to  suppose  that  Bozon 
thought  best  to  modify  the  fables,  yet  he  sees  no  reason 
for  this  supposition,  since  the  details  of  the  fable  (or 
story)  must  have  been  for  the  author  only  of  secondary 
importance.  Neither  do  the  modifications  appear  to 
come  from  an  imperfect  memory.  Finally,  for  seven 
fables  (fables  10,  14,  50,  53<5,  56,  114,  135),  the  editor 
does  not  indicate  parallel  versions,  and  yet  he  does  not 
believe  it  probable  that  Bozon  invented  them. 

To  explain  this  difficulty,  M.  Meyer  sug-gfests  that 
in  the  cases  mentioned,  and  in  others  still,  Bozon  might 
have  made  use  of  a  collection  of  fables  closely  related  to 
that  of  Marie  de  Prance.  Marie  translated  into  French 
verse  a  book  of  English  fables  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth 
century.  Bozon  could  have  known  it,  in  a  rejuvenated 
form,  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century.  One 
could  consider,  then  as  coming  from  the  original  English 
collection,  the  English  verses  which  form  the  moral  of 
certain  fables''^. 

The  editor,  however,  apparently  not  wholly  con- 
vinced that  this  is  the  case,  offers  another  hypothesis 
which  he  says  is  worthy  of  examination.  In  certain 
fables  and  apologues  one  may  recognize  dibris  of  French 
verses^.  Now,  it  is  suggested  that  Bozon  may  have 
made  use  of  a  book  of  Anglo-Norman  fables,  today  lost, 
which  would  have  had  in  part  the  same  source  as  Marie 
de  France,  and  contained,  in  addition,  certain  fables  of 
which  the  source  is  not  known  today.  In  this  manner 
the  English  verses  could  be  explained. 

The  distinguished  editor,  however,  does  not  insist 
on  this  hypothesis.  He  points  out  that  fragments  of 
verse  exist  in  Bozon's  works  also,  though  rarely,  outside 
of  the  fables;  that  is,  in  the  sermons  proper®,  and  he 


7.  Cf.  C  M.  de  Bozon,  par.  14,  yi\,  128. 

8.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  pp.  3O,  55,  120,  121,  129. 

9.  Cf.  C.  M,  de  Bozon,  par.  9,  115,  121,  133. 


sugfgests  that  Bozon,  who  was  a  poet  as  well  as  a  prose 
writer,  may  have  wished  to  embellish  his  prose  works 
with  rimes- 

The  only  definite  result  drawn  from  this  discussion 
is  that  Bozon  knew  a  collection  of  fables,  written  very 
probably  in  England,  either  in  English  or  in  French, 
which  had  in  part  the  same  source  as  the  collection  of 
Marie  de  Prance. 

Gaston  Paris,  in  speaking-  of  Bozon^^,  states  that 
the  fables  and  contes  in  his  sermons  appear  to  be  from 
an  English  source,  while  Crane  in  his  introduction  to 
Jacques  de  Vi'try^^  expresses  the  belief  that  the  exempla 
of  Bozon  are  taken  largely  from  some  Anglo-Norman 
collection  now  lost. 

There  has  been  but  one  critical  study  of  the  fables 
of  Bozon  since  the  edition  of  the  text,  and  this  is  merely 
a  brief  discussion  by  Herlet  in  his  work  on  Fable  Liter- 
ature in  the  Middle  Ages^^.  The  author  believes  that 
M.  Meyer  has  not  shown  clearly  enough  the  relationship 
between  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France.  He  adds  the  fol- 
lowing fables  to  the  editor's  list  of  those  fables  which 
depend  upon  Marie  de  France : 

1.  Fables  taken  directly  from  Marie^^: 

23  (Marie  XXIX);  42  (Marie  LXXI);  47  (Marie 
LI);   50  (Marie  CI);   130  (Marie  LXXXIV). 

2.  Fables  dependent  in  part  on  Marie : 

17  (Marie  LXXIX);  18  (Marie  XXXI);  55  (Marie 
IV);  61  (Marie  LXI);  94  (Marie  XLIX);  116  (Marie 
XCVIII,  Odo  XXXIX);  142  (Marie  LXX). 

For  the  following  fables  Herlet  gives  Odo  of  Sher- 
ington  as  the  source  of  Bozon : 


10.  Cf.  La  Litterature  Frangaise  au  Moyen  age  {Deuxieme 

Edition),  p.  119.  On  page  223  of  this  same  work,  M. 
Paris  places  Bozon  in  the  thirteenth  century  ;  in  the 
chronolog-ical  table,  however,  he  is  put  in  the  four- 
teenth century. 

11.  Cf.     Crane,  Exempla  of  Jacques  de  Vitry,  p.  132. 

12.  Cf.     Herlet,  Asopische  Fable  itn  Mittelalter,  Hamburg, 

1892,  pp.  51-60. 

13.  The  references  here  to  Marie  de  France  correspond  to 

Warnke's  edition  of  Marie's  fables,  and  not  to  Roque- 
fort's edition  as  given  by  Herlet. 


8 


8  (Odo  LXX);  15  (Odo  XI);  17  (Odo  IV);  21  (Odo 
LVIII);  46  (Odo  LXXIV);  53  (Odo  LXIV);  120  (Odo 
XXXIII);   121  (Odo  hlVa);   128  (Odo  XIX). 

According-  to  Herlet,  Bozon  has  been  influenced  by 
the  Romulus  Vulgaris  tradition  in  regard  to  the  follow- 
ing fables : 

26  (Rom.  Vulgaris,  Bk.  I,  1);  30  (Rom.  Vulgaris, 
Bk.  IV,  3);  49  (Rom.  Vulgaris,  Bk.  I,  2);  131  (Rom. 
Vulgaris,  Bk.  I,  6). 

Such,  in  general,  are  the  results  reached  by  Herlet. 
It  is  clear  that  many  points  in  reference  to  the  true 
character  of  the  work  of  Bozon  remain  unsettled.  Her- 
let has  neither  discussed  the  chief  characteristics  of  the 
fables  of  Bozon,  nor  the  probability  of  an  English  or  a 
French  source. 

Nothing  further  had  been  written  concerning  the 
fables  of  Bozon  until  the  year  1896,  when  Hervieux,  in 
his  work  on  Odo  of  Sherington^*,  placed  Bozon  as  de- 
pendent for  the  greater  part  of  his  fables,  at  least,  on 
Odo.  Hervieux  holds  that  Bozon  made  use  of  a  collec- 
tion containing  the  fables  of  Odo  of  Sherington  and 
other  fables,  but  that  the  borrowings  were  made  mostly 
from  Odo,  and  for  this  reason  he  assigns  Bozon  a  place 
among  the  imitators  of  this  fabulist.  He  is  convinced 
that  Bozon  really  translated  the  text  of  Odo  of  Shering- 
ton in  other  cases  than  thos^  indicated  by  M.  Meyer^^. 
In  short,  he  holds  that  Bozon  has  translated  or,  at  least, 
paraphrased  the  majority  of  his  fables  from  this  fabulist. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  from  these  differences  of 
opinion  regarding  the  character  of  the  fables  of  Bozon, 
that  numerous  questions  arise  which  have  not,  and  per- 
haps can  not,  receive  a  perfectly  satisfactory  solution. 
But  since  the  appearance  of  the  text  of  Nicole  Bozon, 
Hervieux  has  published  a  second  edition  of  his  work  on 
the  Latin  fabulists,  in  which  several  new  fables  appear 
that  were  not  noted  in  his  first  edition.*"  He  has  also 
edited  the  fables  of  Odo  of  Sherington,  the  introduction 


14.  Cf.     Hervieux,    Etude    sur  les  Fables    et   les    Paraboles 

d'Efidus  de  Cheriton,  p.  92. 

15.  Cf.  p.  6  of  this  Introduction. 


to  which  throws  much  lig-ht  upon  related  fable  collec- 
tions. Warnke^^  has  also  issued  a  new  edition  of  the 
fables  of  Marie  de  France,  with  a  valuable  introduction 
to  the  same.  A  renewed  and  more  careful  study  of  the 
fables  of  Bozon,  made  with  the  aid  of  these  works,  leads 
to  a  number  of  interesting"  results. 

b.    DIFFICUI.TIKS    OF  THK   SUBJECT. 

To  determine  the  exact  relations  existing-  among 
the  fables  of  the  various  fable  collections  is,  in  most 
cases,  extremely  difficult,  owing-  to  the  complexity  of 
the  problem  presented  to  the  investigator.  Each  fable 
must  be  carefully  compared  with  the  corresponding 
fables  in  other  collections  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
relationship,  if  any,  which  exists  among  them.  To  do 
this  it  is  necessary  to  take  up  each  separate  motif,  and 
make  it  the  subject  of  a  comparative  study.  Thus,  it  is 
only  by  a  careful  comparison  of  the  fables  of  Bozon 
with  the  corresponding  versions  found  in  the  various 
fable  collections  that  any  true  light  can  be  thrown  on 
the  sources  of  the  fables  cited  here  and  there  in  his 
work. 

One  reason  why  this  subject  is  especially  difficult 
is  the  fact  that  in  the  twelfth,  thirteenth  and  fourteenth 
centuries  pious  authors,  under  the  pretext  of  edifying- 
and,  at  the  same  time,  amusing  their  readers,  put  into 
their  collections  all  sorts  of  legends,  jests,  tales  and 
fables.  These  stories  were  of  Oriental,  Latin,  French 
and  English  origin,  and  in  their  passage  from  one  lan- 
guage to  another  it  is  not  surprising  that  they  have 
not,  as  a  rule,  preserved  their  original  character.  They 
fall  into  the  hands  of  redactors  who  have,  or  think  they 
have,  literary  ability,  and  who  do  not  feel  obliged  to 
respect  the  original  text.  To  follow  four  or  five  authors 
through  their  versions  of  these  fables,  to  study  what 
the  fables  have  become  in  the  hands  of  the  different 


16.  Warnke,  Die  Fabeln  der  Marie  de  France,  Halle,  1898 
(Vol.  VI  of  Bibliotheca  Normanuica,  edited  by  H. 
Suchier). 


10 


poets,  to  note  the  changes  to  which  the  fables  have  been 
subjected,  to  examine  the  new  moral  applications  that 
have  been  drawn  from  them — all  this  is  necessary  and 
can  be  accomplished  only  by  dealing  with  the  subject 
systematically  in  the  minutest  details. 

Two  thing's  make  this  comparison  especially  difficult 
in  regard  to  the  fables  of  Bozon  ;  namely,  the  fact  that 
many  of  his  fables  are  only  given  summarily,  the  fable 
being  introduced  frequently  in  the  following  manner: 
^^Ici  on  i>eut  conter  de — ";  or,  "/<:/'  on  feut  conter  une 
fahle^  co?nent — "^'^.  In  one  place  ^^  there  is  nothing 
more  than  a  mere  reference  to  a  fable:  "/<:/  i>eot  Vern 
dire  content  le  sienge  pria  le  gofil  qe  il  lui  fei'st  solaz  de 
ii7ie  fartie  de  sa  cowe  en  allegeance  del  une  en  avancement 
del  autre^  At  times  it  would  seem  that  Bozon  had 
developed  a  fable  orally  before  his  hearers^  ^;  in  other 
cases,  however,  the  fable  is  sufficiently  amplified  in 
written  forms^^.  Again,  in  several  of  the  fables  of 
Bozon,  motifs  are  frequently  introduced  which  are  not 
found  in  any  known  collection  of  fables.  For  this  rea- 
son it  is  often  a  most  difficult  question  to  decide  whether 
or  not  Bozon  knew  some  fable  collection  which  is  today 
not  extant. 

C.     PI. AN  OF   THE   WORK. 

In  discussing  the  fables  of  Bozon,  I  have  endeavored 
to  point  out  the  relation,  if  any,  which  exist  between 
Bozon  and  the  chief  fable  collections  of  the  Middle  Ages 
made  prior  to  his  time.  I  have  shown,  whenever  it  was 
possible,  whether  Bozon  followed  the  Romulus  Vulgaris 
tradition  or  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus  tradition,  as 
these  are  the  two  chief  branches  with  which  we  are 
here  concerned.  It  has  not  been  thought  necessary  to 
mention  any  collection  connected  with  either  of  these 
two  important  groups  which  do  not  offer  any  variant 
motifs,  or  show  that  Bozon  had  made  use  of  it.     A  com- 


17.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  par.  8,  10,  21. 

18.  Cf.  C  M.  de  Bozon,  par.  74. 

19.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  par.  34,  42,  72,  74,  etc. 

20.  Cf .  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  par.  120,  145. 


11 


parison  has  also  been  made  of  the  Bozon  material  with 
the  more  important  works  of  a  religious  type  containing- 
certain  stray  fables,  which  Bozon  could  well  have  known; 
such  as,  Odo  of  Sherington,  Jacques  de  Vitry,  Bromiar- 
dus,  etc.  Many  minor  collections^^  have  also  been 
examined,  and  whenever  any  connection  between  them 
and  Bozon  is  apparent,  such  relationship  is  noted. 

A  study  of  the  fables  of  Bozon  will  readily  con- 
vince one  that  Bozon  was  acquainted  with  the  fables 
of  Marie  de  Prance  in  some  form  or  other.  Marie's 
poetical  version  of  ^^sopic  fables  were  very  popular  in 
England  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries. 
To  judge  from  the  number  of  manuscripts  of  her  fables 
still  extant,  it  would  seem  that  copies  of  them  must 
have  been  at  the  time  of  Bozon  in  many  of  the  im- 
portant libraries  and  monasteries  of  England,  and  also 
in  the  North  of  France.  Moreover,  it  was  not  uncom- 
mon for  the  nobles  to  possess  a  few  books  of  literary 
character  such  as  Marie's  fables.  Although  it  is  per- 
haps hardly  probable  that  a  preacher  of  so  humble  a 
station  in  life  as  Bozon  appears  to  have  been,  was  him- 
self the  possessor  of  such  a  work,  it  would  be  remark- 
able if  he  were  not,  at  least,  acquainted  with  the 
excellent  collection  of  fables  of  his  illustrious  country- 
woman. 

Another  work  of  the  same  character  as  Bozon's 
sermons  is  the  Fables  and  Paraholae  of  Odo  of  Sher- 
ington.  Odo  lived  in  the  first  half  of  the  thirteenth 
century.  His  collection  of  sermons  was  verv  popular 
with  the  clergy  throughout  England,  since  it  was  con- 
stantly used  by  them  in  the  amplification  of  their 
sermons,  and  the  moralized  fables  and  parables  therein 
contained  were  frequently  copied  by  later  fabulists  and 
other  writers  ^^.  Bozon's  sermons  show  clearly  that 
he  was  familiar  with  the  works  of  Odo. 

These  two  authors,  Marie  de  France  and  Odo  of 
Sherington,    seem,    therefore,  to   have  been   the  chief 


21.  For  a  list  of  the  works  consulted,  see  Bibliography. 

22.  Cf.  Hervieux,  Vol.  IV,  p.  146. 


12 


( 

of  hK. 


23.  M.  Meyer  is  of  the  opinion  that  Bozon  drew  the  great 
majority  of  his  exempla  at  least,  from  a  work  closely 
resembling  the  De  proprietatibus  rerum  of  Bar- 
thelemy  the  Englishman  (or  Glanville). 


\\>- 


i/NIVERSfTY 
sources  for  Bozon's  fables.  For  the  rest  of  hJk-Jables^^ 
which  are  not  derived  from  either  of  the  authors  just- 
mentioned,  it  would  seem  that  he  was  dependent  on  a 
variety  of  sources.  We  must  give  him  the  credit  for 
being  familiar  with  some  of  the  chief  religious  works 
of  his  time  ;  as  those  of  facqtces  de  Vitry,  Vitae  Patrum, 
the  Bisciplina  Clericalis^  etc.,  since  to  these  he  is 
indebted  for  some  of  his  exempla  ^^.  Again  we  may 
well  suppose  that  in  his  relations  with  other  men  of 
his  profession,  he  probably  became  acquainted  with  a 
certain  number  of  new  fables  not  contained  in  the 
literary  collections  noted,  or  with  familiar  fables  in 
new  forms. 

d.    SCHEMK   OF   FABLK   COI.I.KCTIONS. 

The  position  to  which  Bozon  should  be  assigned 
among  the  writers  of  stray  fables  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
is  next  to  be  determined.  On  one  side,  from  Marie  de 
France,  he  is  a  continuator  of  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus 
tradition ;  on  the  other  hand,  as  a  follower  of  Odo  of 
Sherington,  "he  is  dependent,  in  part,  on  the  Romulus 
Vulgaris  tradition.  From  a  study  of  the  fables  of 
Bozon  it  does  not  appear  that  he  knew  the  collections 
of  Nilantius,  the  Romulus  Treverensis  or  the  Romulus 
Roberti.  Nor  do  his  fables  bear  the  ear-marks  of  the 
Avianus  type  of  ^sopic  fables.  Bozon's  place  in  fable 
literature  will,  then,  probably  be  shown  by  the  follow- 
ing scheme  : 


13 


Rom.  Vulgaris 
(cir.  950  A.  D.) 


Odo  of  Sherinerton 
(cir.  1250  A.  D.) 


Ysopet  d'  Evreux 
(cir.  1275  A.  D.) 


Romulus  Primitivus 
(cir.  900  A.  D.— lost) 


Rom.  Nilantii 
(cir.  1050  A.  D.) 


Anerlo-Latin  Rom. 
(cir.  1100  A.  D.— lost. 


Alfred  of  Entrland 
(cir.  1150  A.  D.— lost.) 


Rom.  Treverensis  Marie  de  France,  Esope 

(cir.  1175  A.  D.)  (cir.  1175  A.  D. 


Nicole  Bozon 


(cir.  1320  A.  D.) 


Rom.  Harleianus 
(cir.  1375  A.  D.) 


(14) 


e.    COMPARATIVE   TABLE  OF  VERSIONS. 

The  following-  table  will  show  at  a  glance  the  fable 
collections,  and  other  works,  containing  versions  par- 
allel to  the  fables  found  in  Bozon.  Only  those  versions 
have  been  included  in  this  table  which  may  reasonably 
be  considered  as  perhaps  closely  related  to  those  of  our 
author. 

TABI.E   OF    PARALLEI.  VERSIONS. 


Bozon 

.22 
> 

c 

ii 

s 

o 

t 

-a 

> 

o 

bs 
"u 

m 

o 
o 

Miscellaneous 

1 — IT    4.    L/ion  as  Judge. 

81 
70 

Paris  Promptuarium  3. 

1.14 

L14 

13 

14 

Bromiardus,  G.  IV.  16. 

3—     10.    Crow  and  Bees 

4—     ]4.    Kite  and  Crow 

5—     15.    Thrush  and  Starling-... 

80 
79 
31 

123 
122 
79 

11 
4 

58' 

'74' 
■24' 
56' 

Rom.  Vratislavensis  27. 

6—     17.    Owl  and  Hawk 

Rom,  Roberti  12. 

7—  18.    Peacock  and  Destiny... 

8—  21.    Wolf  and  Rabbit 

IV,    4 

III,   2 

Gesta  Romanorum  57. 

9 —     23.    Lion  Reigning- 

111,20 
L    1 

IL  20 
I,   1 
I,  3 

in,  11 

29 
1 
30 
40 
71 

77 
1 
78 
88 
62 

Rom,  Roberti  22. 

10—     26.    Cock  and  Jewel 

Bromiardus,  A.  XXVI.  32 

11 —     30.    Fox  and  Plowman. 

Bromiardus,  C.  VI.  14. 

12—  34,121.    Sheep  and  Crow 

13—  42.    Wolf  and  Hedgehog.... 

IV,  21 

14—     46.    Wolf  and  Fox  . 

R.  de  Renart,  III.  374-510. 

15—     47.    Monkey  and  Child...  . 

51 

2 

101 

41 

2 

132 

Jacques  de  Vitry  143. 

16—     49.    Wolf  and  Lamb 

17=     50.    Cat  as  Bishop 

L   2 

I.   2 

Spec,  Hist.,  Bk.  IV.  c. 

18—     53a.  Roaming  Cat 

Jacques  de  Vitry  209. 

19—  53b.  Birds  Seeking   Wife\ 

for  Eagle / 

20—  55.    Sheep  and  Wolf  be-  ( 

fore  Lion j 

L   4 

L  4 

4 

4 

23 

21—     56.     Rabbit  Elected  Judge.. 

22—     61.    Fox  and  Dove 



51 

7 

28 
73 

6 
49 

61 
9 

76 

116 

8 

32 

'6' 
■63' 

Jacques  de  Vitry  20. 

23—     72.    Wolf  and  Crane. 

I.   8 
III,  17 

I,    9 

n,i9 

24—  74.    Fox  and  Monkey 

25—  75.    Rat  Seeking  Wife 

Jacques  de  Vitry  171. 
Rom.  Bern.  Pr.  42. 

26-  91.    Sun  Seeking  Wife 

27—  94.    Man  and  Trees 

L    1 
III,  14 

L   8 

n,i6 

Jacques  de  Vitry  142. 

28—  114.    Bear  Proud  of  Hands.. 

29—  116.    Fox  and  Pigeon 

98 

129 

39 
33 
54a 

30—  120.    Ass  and  Pig   . 

Gesta  Romanorum  50. 

31—  121.    Cat  and  Mice. 

Ps.  Gault.  Angl.  3. 

32—  128.    Fox  and  Sheep 

Disc.  Clericalis  21. 

33 —  129.    Lion  and  Mouse 

L17 

L17 

16 
84 
11 

17 

63 

6 

Spec.  Doct.,  Bk.  II.  c.  116. 

34—  130.    Man  and  Oxen 

Rom.  Roberti  18. 

35—  131.    Lion  and  Companions.. 

36—  135.    Hen  Married  to  Hawk.. 

I.   6 

L   6 

Jacques  de  Vitry  156. 

37—  142,    Ass' Heart 

70 

61 

156' 

Avianus  30. 

38—145.    FoxandCat 

Jacques  de  Vitry  174, 

15 


y.    OBJECTS   OF  INVESTIGATION. 

In  the  following:  Comparative  Study  of  the  ^sopic 
Fable  in  Nicole  Bozon,  I  shall  endeavor  to  point  out, 
above  all,  the  unusually  close  relationship  that  exists 
between  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France.  Herlet  has  rec- 
ognized the  interdependence  of  the  two  collections,  but 
he  has  shown  it  for  only  a  few  fables  ^*. 

The  dependence  of  Bozon  on  Odo  of  Sherington  I 
have  found  to  be  much  less  extensive  than  that  on  Marie 
de  France,  although  the  general  character  of  his  work 
more  closely  resembles  that  of  Odo  than  that  of  his 
more  illustrious  country-woman.  The  place,  as  a  fol- 
lower of  Odo,  given  him  by  Hervieux,  is,  therefore,  not 
so  well  deserved  as  that  of  a  follower  of  Marie  de 
France — a  fact  which  will  become  manifest,  I  hope,  in 
the  course  of  the  present  investigation. 

The  numbers,  as  well  as  the  varied  types  of  the 
fables  found  in  the  sermons  of  Bozon,  prove  that  he 
was  a  diligent  collector  and  adapter  of  ^sopic  material. 
Not  only  has  he  taken  his  material  from  books  of  a 
religious  character,  but  also  from  oral  tradition,  both 
monkish  and  popular. 

Finally,  I  shall  endeavor  to  point  out  in  the  follow- 
ing pages  the  chief  characteristics  of  Bozon  in  his  treat- 
ment of  the  ^sopic  Fable,  as  a  constituent  part  of 
Mediaeval  Literature.  In  general,  it  may  be  said  that 
Bozon's  fables  have  a  peculiar  cast,  since  well  known 
fables  frequently  show  not  only  an  addition  of  new 
motifs,  but  also  a  notable  difference  in  the  characters 
introduced  as  actors  of  the  fable. 

These  striking  features  can  be  adequately  ex- 
plained only  by  a  careful  and  detailed  study  of  the 
individual  fables,  combined  with  a  more  general  view 
embracing  a  consideration  both  of  the  special  character 
and  the  chief  aim  of  his  work. 


24.    Cf.  p.  8. 


16 


SOURCES  OP  THE  INDIVIDUAL  FABLES. 


FABI^KS    DERIVED   FROM   MARIK   DIE   FRANCE), 
OR   A   COMMON   SOURCE. 


The  fables  of  Bozon  which  appear  to  be  derived 
from  Marie  de  France,  or  at  least  belong-  to  the  Ang-lo- 
Latin  Romulus  as  opposed  to  the  Romulus  Vulgaris 
tradition,  in  some  way  or  other,  are  the  following- : 

Bozon  17  (Marie  79),  Owl  and  Hawk  ; 

Bozon  18  (Marie  31),  Peacock  and  Destiny; 

Bozon  23  (Marie  29),  Lion  as  King; 

Bozon  42  (Marie  71),  Wolf  and  Hedgehog; 

Bozon  47  (Marie  51),  Monkey  and  Child; 

Bozon  50  (Marie  101),  Cat  as  Bishop  ; 

Bozon  55  (Marie  4),  Sheep  and  Wolf  before  Lion; 

Bozon  61  (Marie  61),  Fox  and  Dove ; 

Bozon  75  (Marie  73),  Rat  Seeking  Wife ; 

Bozon  91  (Marie  6),  Sun  Seeking  Wife  ; 

Bozon  94  (Marie  49),  Man  and  Trees  ; 

Bozon  129  (Marie  16),  Lion  and  Mouse; 

Bozon  130  (Marie  84),  Man  and  Oxen ; 

Bozon  131  (Marie  11),  Lion  and  Companions; 

Bozon  142  (Marie  70),  Ass'  Heart. 

Each  fable  in  this  list  will  be  taken  up  and  com- 
pared in  detail  with  the  parallel  versions  found  in  the 
various  fable  collections,  or  in  other  such  works  as  it 
has  been  possible  to  control.  The  order  followed  in  the 
discussion  of  these  fables  is  the  same  as  that  in  which 
they  occur  in  Bozon's  text. 

I.      OWIy   AND   HAWK. 

Versions:  Marie  de  France  79 ;  Rom.  Treverensis 
122 ;  Odo  of  Sherington  4 ;  Rom.  Roberti  12 ;  Bozon  17  ; 
John  of  Sheppey  51  ^ . 

This  fable,  as  M.  Meyer  states  in  his  notes  on 
Bozon  ^,  exists  under  two  different  forms.     In  Odo  of 


1.  The  references  to  the  parallel  versions  are  arrang-ed  in 

chronolog-ical  order. 

2.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  p.  232,  note  17. 

17 


Sherington  and  in  John  of  Sheppey  it  bears  the  name 
of  Blizzard  and  Hawk^  while  in  Bozon,  the  Rom. 
Treverensis  and  Marie  de  Prance  it  bears  the  title  of 
Owl  and  Hawk.  That  there  is  a  crossing:  here  of  both 
traditions,  as  indicated  by  the  different  names  just 
noted,  is  evident  from  the  version  in  John  of  Sheppey, 
where  the  young  of  the  hawk  speak  of  the  young-  owl 
thus  : 

'*Domine,  iste  est  cum  magno  capite." 
This  is  the  same  answer  as  given  in  the  Rom. 
Treverensis  and  in  the  Rom.  Roberti,  where  such  an 
answer  is  fitting- ;  but  where  it  refers  to  the  buzzard 
(busardus),  as  in  John  of  Sheppey,  it  must  be  regarded 
as  peculiar.  It  appears  that  John  of  Sheppey  knew 
also  the  version  which  is  common  to  Marie  de  France, 
the  Rom.  Treverensis  and  the  Rom.  Roberti  ;  that  is, 
the  Owl  and  Hawk  type  ;  and  that  a  confusion  arose  in 
his  mind  between  this  version  and  the  Buzzard  and 
Hawk  type.  This  supposition  will  help  to  explain  the 
resemblance  in  this  fable  which  Bozon's  version  has 
with  that  of  Odo  of  Sherington  and  also  with  that  of 
Marie  de  Prance.  Bozon,  as  well  as  John  of  Sheppey, 
may  have  known  both  versions. 

This  fable  probably  belonged  to  the  collection  of 
Alfred  of  England,  as  English  verses  are  found  in  the 
versions  as  given  both  by  Odo  of  Sherington  and  by 
Bozon.     In  Odo,  the  English  verses  : 

Of  eie  hi  the  brothte 

Of  athele  hi  ne  mythte, 
are  similar  to  verses  29-32  of  Marie  de  Prance  : 

De  r  oef  les  poi  jeo  bien  geter 

E  par  chalur  e  par  cover, 

Mais  nient  fors  de  lur  nature. 

Maldite  seit  tels  nurreture ! 
Bozon  has  a  similar  expression  in  : 

**  Stroke  oule  and  schrape  oule 
and  evere  is  oule  oule." 


18 


Prof.  Mall  ^  believes  that  the  English  verses  in 
Odo  of  Sheringfton  are  a  remnant  of  the  collection  of 
Alfred  of  Eng-land. 

This  fable  appears  to  have  been  founded  upon,  or  to 
have  been  the  origin  of,  a  very  old  and  popular  proverb, 
which  is  found  in  most  of  the  Teutonic  langfuag-es. 

Bozon  is  indebted  to  Marie  de  Prance,  or  at  least  to 
the  Ang-lo-Latin  Romulus  tradition,  for  the  title  of  his 
fable,  and  not  to  Odo  of  Sherington.  There  are,  more- 
over, some  unmistakable  similarities  between  Bozon 
and  Marie  de  Prance  which  do  not  appear  in  Bozon  and 
Odo.  The  principal  motifs  of  the  fable  will  now  be 
taken  up  and  discussed  in  detail. 

a.  In  Marie  de  Prance  and  in  Bozon  we  find  Huans 
and  Ostiir;  in  Odo  of  Shering-ton  and  in  John  of 
Sheppey,  Busardus  and  Accii)iter. 

b.  Marie  de  Prance  and  the  Rom.  Treverensis 
agree  in  that  the  Hawk  and  the  Owl  have  formed  a 
friendship.  In  Odo  of  Sherington  and  in  John  of 
Sheppey  the  Biisardiis  secretly  deposits  an  ^^^  in  the 
nest  of  the  Hawk ;  while  in  Bozon  the  Owl,  by  begging 
the  Hawk  to  bring  up  its  jiz^  naturally  presupposes  a 
friendship  as  existing  between  the  Owl  and  the  Hawk. 

c.  Both  Marie  de  Prance  and  Bozon  state  that  the 
Hawk  goes  for  food  and  on  returning  finds  its  nest  be- 
fouled.    Compare  Bozon  : 

Tan  que  le  ostur  voleit  qere  lur  viaunde, 
revynt  et  trova  son  ny  ordement  soilli, 
and  Marie  de  Prance  : 

Puis  lur  ala  querre  viande, 


Mes  quant  a  els  fu  repairiez, 
Esteit  sis  niz  orz  e  suilliez. 

(vv.  12-14.) 
The   similarity  here   in  the  use  of  words  is  very 
striking.       Neither   Odo  of    Sherington   nor  John    of 


3.     Cf.     E.  Mall,  Zur  Geschichte  der  mittelalterlicken  Fabel- 
litteratur,  Z  F  R  P,  Vol.  IX  (1880)  pp.  161-204. 


19 


Sheppey,   on  the  other  hand,   speak  of  the   Hawk   as 
going-  for  food. 

d.  The  phrase  in  Bozon  : 

Qe  est  ceo  que  jeo  trove  encontre  norture  ? 

Qui  ad  ceo  fet  ? 
which  M.  Meyer  compares  with  Odo : 

Quis  vestrum  est  qui  nidum  suum 

contra  naturam  commaculavit  ? 
and  by  which  he  thinks  there  is  shown  an  incontestable 
relationship  between  Odo  and  Bozon  in  regard  to  this 
fable,  seems  to  me,  to  say  the  least,  somewhat  doubtful. 
The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  Marie  de  France.  As 
was  noted  above  *  Bozon  may  have  known  both  forms 
(Owl-Hawk,  Buzzard-Hawk)  of  the  fable  and  since  he 
knew  Odo,  he  may  have  been  indirectly  influenced  by 
him,  but  the  general  motifs  of  the  fable,  as  will  appear, 
are  similar  to  those  in  Marie  de  Prance. 

Again,  it  should  be  observed  that  there  is  a  differ- 
ence, as  will  be  seen  below,  in  manuscript  reading  be- 
tween the  text  as  quoted  by  M.  Meyer  ^  and  that  found 
in  Hervieux's  edition  of  the  fables  of  Odo  of  Shering- 
ington.  The  version  in  Hervieux  (vol.  IV,  p.  181)  has 
simply  : 

Quis  est  qui  nidum  maculat  ? 
(as  also  in  Oesterley's  edition  ^),  and  not  as  Hervieux 
(vol.  n,  first  edition)  has  it  "^  : 

Qui  nidum  suum  contra  naturam  commaculavit  ? 
If  this  last  reading  be  not  adopted  the  relation  between 
Odo  of  Sherington  and  Bozon  in  this  fable  is  not  at 
all  clear. 

e.  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France  agree  in  that  the 
Hawk  says,   in  both  versions,   that  its  young  (y^^,  in 


4.  Cf .     pag-e  18. 

5.  Cf .     C.  M.  de  Bozon,  p.  233. 

6.  Cf.     Oesterley,  Die  Narrationes  des  Odo  de  Ciringtonia, 

Jahrb.  f.  roman.  und  engl.  lit.  Vol.  IX  (1868),  p.  ISO. 

7.  Cf.     Hervieux,  Vol.  II  (first  edition),  p.  601. 


20 


Bozon)  are  in  the  rig-ht,  and  both  authors  (Bozon  and 
Marie)  follow  this  statement  with  a  sort  of  proverb : 

*' Stroke  oule  and  schrape  oule  and  evere 
is  oule  oule," 
of  Bozon  has  the  same  signification  as  Marie's 

De  r  oef  les  poi  jeo  bien  geter, 

E  par  chalur  e  par  cover, 

Mais  nient  fors  de  lur  nature. 

(vv.  29-31.) 
The  Kng-lish  verses  which  are  found  at  the  end  of  the 
fable  in  Odo  of  Shering-ton  prove  that  the  fable  origin- 
ally came  from  the  same  source  as  that  of  Marie  de 
France  ;  that  is,  from  the  collection  of  Alfred  of  Eng-- 
land.  Whether  Bozon  knew  a  collection  of  English 
fables  closely  connected  to  that  of  Marie  de  Prance  or 
not  will  be  discussed  in  a  subsequent  publication.  It 
is  probable,  however,  in  this  case,  that  Bozon  being- 
familiar  with  the  old  Engflish  proverb,  and  having  an 
audience  composed,  in  larg-e  measure,  of  Eng-lishmen, 
preferred  to  use  the  Eng-lish  rather  than  the  French 
words  to  illustrate  his  thought. 

f.  In  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France,  it  is  not  noted 
that  the  young  are  thrown  out  of  the  nest,  as  is  stated 
in  Odo  of  Sherington  and  in  John  of  Sheppey. 

g.  The  moral  of  the  fable  in  Odo  differs  totally 
from  that  in  Bozon.  Compare,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
moral  in  Marie  de  France  with  that  in  Bozon. 

Marie  de  France  : 

Pur  ceo  dit  hum  en  repruvier 

De  la  pume  del  dulz  pumier, 

S'  elle  chief  sur  un  fust  amer, 

Ja  ne  savra  tant  rueler 

Qu  'al  mordre  ne  seit  cuneiie, 

Desur  quel  arbre  ele  est  ere  tie. 

(vv.  33-38.) 
Bozon : 

*'Trendle  the  appel  nevere  so  fer  he 
conyes  fro  what  tree  he  cam !  " 


21 


There  can  be  no  doubt  here  that  Bozon  has  taken  the 
moral  of  his  fable  directly  from  Marie  de  France.  The 
use  of  the  English  instead  of  the  French  is  to  be 
explained  as  above  (e). 

In  resumd^  then,  for  this  fable  we  have  the  follow- 
ing- considerations  :  Taking-  into  account  the  number  of 
motifs  that  are  common  to  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France, 
as  opposed  to  Odo  of  Sherington  and  John  of  Slieppe}^ 
it  is  readily  seen  that  the  two  former  agree  in  almost 
every  particular.  Any  divergence  in  our  author  from 
the  version  of  Marie  de  France  can,  I  think,  be 
explained  by  individual  taste. 

In  Hervieux  (Vol.  II)  this  fable  is  found  only  in 
the  Rom.  Treverensis  and  the  Rom.  Roberti.  It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  Bozon  must  either  have  drawn 
it  from  Marie  de  France  (or  at  least  from  the  same  or 
similar  source  on  which  Marie  drew  for  her  version)  or 
from  some  fable  collection  composed  for  the  use  of 
preachers.  It  should  be  stated  here  that  the  versions  of 
this  fable  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis  and  the  Rom.  Roberti 
agree,  naturally,  very  closely  with  Marie  de  France. 
Since  this  is  true  of  the  majority  of  the  fables  which 
are  common  with  these  collections  and  with  Marie  de 
France,  I  shall  not  discuss  them  in  respect  to  their  rela- 
tion to  Bozon,  except  in  certain  cases  where  motifs  are 
added  which  do  not  appear  in  Marie.  Besides,  it  will 
be  shown  later  ^  that  Bozon  for  certain  fables,  could  not 
have  been  dependent  on  the  Rom.  Treverensis  or  the 
Rom.  Roberti. 

There  is  no  good  reason  why  Bozon,  since  he  was 
an  Anglo-Norman  and  wrote  in  French,  should  not  have 
been  acquainted  with  the  fables  of  Marie  de  France. 
A  study  of  the  foregoing  comparison  of  this  fable  of 
Bozon  with  analagous  fables  in  the  various  fable  collec- 
tions convinces  one  that  Bozon  did  draw  this  fable 
directly  from  Marie  de  France  and  not  from  some  col- 
lection of  fables  intended  more  especially  for  church 
use. 


8.     For  example,  compare  fable  of  Wolf  and  Hedgehog-,  p.  30. 

22 


II.      PBACOCK   AND   DKSTINY. 

Versions:  Rom.  Vulg-aris,  IV,  4 ;  Rom.  Nilantii, 
III,  2 ;  Marie  de  Prance  31 ;  Rom.  Treverensic  79 ; 
Bozon  18. 

Bozon's  use  of  the  word  'Destiny'  for  g-oddess,  or 
Juno,  recalls  fable  6  in  Marie  de  France  (De  sole 
nubente): 

Les  creatures  s'  assemblerent ; 

A  la  destinee  en  alerent. 

(vv.  5-6.) 
Our  author  also  uses  the  same  expression  in  parag-raph 
91,  fable  of  Sun  Seeking  Wife: 

Les  autres  alerent  a  Destinee. 
It  is  remarkable  that  while  the  Rom.  Nilantii,  the 
Rom.  Vulg-aris  and  all  the  Latin  versions  dependent  on 
the  latter  desigfnate  the  Deity  as  Juno,  the  Anglo-Latin 
Romulus  tradition ;  that  is,  Marie  de  France  and  the 
Rom.  Treverensis,  use  a  different  appelation.  In  Marie 
de  Prance  it  is  deuesse  (Mss.  A  D  destinee^  Q  nature^ ^ 
in  the  Rom.  Treverensis  creato7\  This  fact  is  sujfficient 
to  show  that  Bozon  was  not  inspired  by  the  Rom. 
Vulgaris  tradition  for  his  appellation  of  the  Deity,  but 
by  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus  tradition.  The  frequent 
interchange  in  the  manuscripts  of  Marie  de  Prance  of 
the  words  destinee^  deuesse^  nature^  would  lead  one  to 
suspect  that  it  is  to  this  author  that  Bozon  is  indebted 
for  the  word  destinee. 

The  fable  in  Bozon  presents  some  motifs  which  are 
common  to  both  the  Rom.  Vulgaris  and  the  Anglo- 
Latin  Romulus  tradition.  Both  traditions  agree  in  the 
motif  that  the  Peacock  is  grieved  because  it  could  not 
sing  as  well  as  the  Nightingale.  In  the  reply  of  the 
goddess  to  the  Peacock,  consoling  it  by  speaking  of  its 
beautiful  person,  it  is  worth  notice  that  Bozon  agrees 
in  a  striking  manner  with  the  Rom.  Vulgaris. 


23 


Compare  Bozon : 

Tu  as  le  col  si  g'ent,  la  cowe  long-e  qe 
a  terre  pent,  voz  pennez  sont  si  colurez  les 
uns  de  porpre,  les  autres  blieus,  les  uns 
com  saunke,  les  autres  desorrez 
and  the  Rom.  Vulg^aris  : 

Visus  tuus  superat  vocem,  et  formatua 
superat  lusciniam  colore  et  nitore  smarag-di 
profusus  es ;  nuUus  similis  tibi  ;  pictisque 
plumis  gemmae  Cauda  et  coUo  refulgent. 
Marie  de  France  and  the  Rom.  Treverensis,  on  the  other 
hand,   merely  mention  the   beautiful   feathers   of    the 
Peacock. 

The  Rom.  Vulgaris  and  Bozon  agree,  again,  in 
another  motif.  In  the  Rom.  Nilantii,  Marie  de  France 
and  the  Rom.  Treverensis  the  Peacock  is  despised  (or 
mocked)  by  all.  In  Bozon  and  the  Rom.  Vulgaris  the 
motif  of  mocked  does  not  enter. 

Bozon   and    Marie   de    France    agree   in   the    final 
answer  of  the  goddess. 
Bozon : 

Soyez  paye  de  ceo  qe  avez. 
Marie  de  France : 

Bien  te  deit  ta  bealtez  suffire. 
The    Rom.   Treverensis    here    agrees    with    Marie    de 
France,  but  the  other  versions  mentioned  have  nothing 
similar  to  it. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  ^  that  Bozon  agrees  with 
Marie  de  France  in  two  important  motifs,  and  with  the 
Rom.  Vulgaris  an  equal  number  of  times  ^^.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  state,  therefore,  to  which  collection  Bozon 
was  indebted  for  this  fable.  I  do  not  venture  to  decide 
the  question.  It  will  be  noticed,  however,  that  Bozon 
and  Marie  de  France  agree  at  the  beginning  and  at  the 
end  of  the  fable.  This  being  a  very  popular  fable,  it  is 
possible  that  Bozon  is  not  here  dependent  on  any  par- 


9.    Cf.  p.  23. 
10.     Cf.    examples  above. 


24 


ticular  fable  collection,  but  that  he  was  well  acquainted 
with  it  from  oral  tradition  and  that  he  wrote  it  down 
from  memory.  This  would  account  for  the  occurrences 
in  his  fable  of  motifs  that  are  common  to  both  the  Rom. 
Vulgaris  and  the  Ang-lo-Latin  Romulus  tradition. 

III.       LION   AS    KING. 

Versions:  Rom.  Vulg*aris,  III,  20;  Rom.  Nilantii, 
II,  20 ;  Marie  de  Prance  29 ;  Rom.  Treverensis  77  ;  Rom. 
Roberti  22  ;  Bozon  23. 

This  fable  also  exists  under  two  different  forms.  In 
the  g-roup  :  Rom.  Vulgaris,  the  Rom.  Nilantii  and  in 
Bozon  it  is  the  Lion  that  is  the  despot ;  in  Marie  de 
Prance,  the  Rom.  Treverensis  and  the  Rom.  Roberti  the 
Wolf  plays  the  role  of  the  despot  after  the  abdication 
of  the  Lion.  Bozon  may  have  taken  the  Lion  from  the 
Rom.  Vulgaris  tradition  ^\  but  the  more  likely  suppo- 
sition is  that,  knowing  the  fable  in  Marie  de  Prance, 
where  the  Lion  is  introduced  as  King  of  the  Beasts,  he 
did  not  choose  to  introduce  the  Wolf  in  his  version, 
since  this  is  but  a  simple  abridgment  of  the  longer 
fable. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  in  paragraph  23  of  Bozon's 
sermons  ^  '^  in  which  the  fable  occurs,  it  is  the  nature  of 
the  lion  that  is  discussed.  Bozon  may  have  wished  to 
retain  the  same  actor  in  the  fable  as  that  mentioned  in 
the  exemflum.  There  are  numerous  examples  occurring 
throughout  the  text  of  Bozon  where  the  names  of  the 
animals  employed  in  the  Exemi)la  appear,  at  times,  to 
have  some  influence  on  the  actors  in  the  fable  which 
immediately  follows  ^^.  Such  an  explanation  would 
not  be  necessary  but  for  the  fact  that  Bozon  in  other 
particulars  agrees  closely  enough  with  Marie  de  France. 
Herlet  ^*  suggests  that  fable  73  of  Marie  de   Prance 


11.  That  is,  the  Romulus  Vulg-aris,  or  fable  collections  de- 

pendent on  the  Romulus  Vulg-aris,  as  opposed  to  the 
Anglo-Ivatin  Romulus  tradition. 

12.  Cf.    C.  M.  de  Bozon,  par.  23,  p.  37. 

13.  Cf.    Fable  of  Fox  and  Pig-eon  (par.  116),  p.  34,  note. 

14.  Cf.   Herlet,  Asopiscke  Fabel  ini  Mittelalter^  p.  56. 


25 


(Roquefort's  edition)  may  have  here  influenced  Bozon. 
The  fable  beg"ins  thus  : 

Jadis  avint  qu'  uns  lous  pramist 
Que  char  ne  mangereit,  ceo  dist, 
Les  quarante  jurs  de  quaresme, 

(vv.  1-3.) 
which  recalls  Bozon : 

Le  leon  fist  serement  que  il  ne  mang-ereit 
char  tot  le  quarasme. 

But  here  also  the  fable  speaks  of  the  Wolf  and  not  of 
the  Lion. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  Bozon  has,  in  common 
with  the  Rom.  Vulgraris  tradition,  the  Lion  as  the  des- 
pot, it  will  be  clearly  shown  from  what  follows,  I 
believe,  that  for  this  fable  he  must  have  been  indebted 
to  Marie  de  France. 

a.  In  Bozon  the  Lion  first  approaches  a  chievere. 
In  Marie  de  Prance  the  Wolf  calls  a  chcvrtieU  in  the 
Rom.  Roberti  a  capreolimi.  The  Rom.  Vulg-aris,  the 
Rom.  Nilantii  and  the  Rom.  Treverensis,  on  the  other 
hand,  mention  no  animal  except  the  Ape  as  being- 
devoured  by  the  wolf. 

b.  Two  important  motifs  which  appear  through- 
out the  Rom.  Vulgaris  tradition  are :  (l)  the  lion  leads 
the  beasts  to  a  secret  place  and  (2)  : 

Omnes  bestias  que  dixerunt  os  suum 
putere  e  que  dicebant  non  putere,  equaliter 
crudeliter  necabat,  ita  ut  saturaretur 
sang-uine  ^^. 

These  two  motifs  do  not  appear  in  the  Anglo-Latin 
Romulus  tradition  (except  in  the  Rom.  Nilantii),  nor  in 
Bozon. 

c.  In  Bozon  the  Lion  calls  an  assembly  and 
demands  judgment  on  the  Goat,  who  had  insulted  the 
"  bailiff  de  tei'rey   Compare  this  with  Marie  de  France  : 

A  tuz  ensemble  demanda 
Quel  jugement  chescuns  fera 
De  celui  ki  dit  sun  seigmir 
Hunte  e  leidesce  e  deshonur, 

(vv.  51-54.) 


15.     Cf.    Hervieux,  Vol.  II,  Rom.  Nilantii,  p.  538.    The  Rom. 
Nilantii  here  follows  the  Rom.  Vulgfaris  tradition. 


26 


The  Rom.  Treverensis  and  the  Rom.  Robert!  agree  with 
this  motif,  except  that  in  the  former  the  victims  are 
merely  called  bestia,  the  Ape  alone  being"  mentioned 
more  particular}-. 

d.  In  Marie  de  France  and  in  Bozon  the  Goat  is 
condemned  to  death. 

e.  In  Bozon  the  Lion  next  approaches  Tipoleyn.  In 
Marie  de  France  we  have  tme  alterc  beste;  in  the  I^om. 
Treverensis  bcslla,  and  in  the  Rom.  Roberti,  damntila 
{or  damnidiim^ .  It  appears  that  Marie's  source  had  not 
mentioned  here  any  particular  animal,  while  the  Rom. 
Roberti  has  substituted  damniiJa  and  Bozon  foleyn. 
Such  substitutions  at  the  will  of  the  author  are  very 
common.  For  example,  M.  Mej^er  in  his  note  on  this 
fable  ^^  g"ives  a  version  taken  from  the  moral  treatise 
known  under  the  name  of  Cy  nous  dit^  where  the  Lion's 
victims  are  successively  a  Lamb,  Sow  and  Fox. 

With  Bozon  the  foleyn  answers  : 

Sire,  vostre  aleyne  pluz  douce  odure 
que  mirre  on  canele. 
Marie  de  France : 

.     .     .     Plus  suef  odur 
Ne  senti  unkes  a  nul  jur. 

(vv.  67-68.) 
It  is  evident  that  Bozon  has  followed  the  Ang-lo- 
Latin  Romulus  tradition,  since  there  is  nothing-  in  the 
Rom.  Vulg-aris  tradition  that  corresponds  to  the  -poleyn 
of  Bozon  or  to  the  altre  beste  of  Marie  de  France.  The 
poleyn's  answer  in  Bozon  reminds  one  of  the  answer  of 
the  Ape  in  the  Rom.  Nilantii,  where  it  says  the  breath 
of  the  Lion  is  like  cinomyn. 

f.  Bozon :  the  Lion  accuses  the  -poleyn  of  lying-. 
Marie  De  France :  the  same  accusation  ag-ainst  altre 
beste. 

g.  The  Lion  in  Bozon  next  meets  a  Monkey,  which 
being-  questioned  in  reg-ard  to  the  Lion's  breath,  refuses 
to  speak.     In  Marie  de  France,  the  Wolf  puts  the  same 


16.     Cf.    C.  M,  de  Bozon,  p.  238,  note  23. 

27 


\ 

question  to  the  Ape  whose  answer  is  :  entre  dons  ert.    In 
the  Rom.  Roberti  we  have  : 

Quae  dixit,  quod  nee  multum  gravis 
erat,  nee  multum  suavis,  sed  medio 
modo  se  habens. 
Rom.  Treverensis : 

Quae  utranque  partem  responsionis 
metuens,  invenit  medium,  dicens, 
"Domine,  anhelitus  tuus  ad  utrumque 
se  habet." 
The  Ape's  answer  in  Marie  de  France,  and  in  her 
dependents,   is  entirely  different  from  that  which  the 
Rom.  Vulgaris  tradition  offers,  where  the  Ape  answers  : 

Ille  quasi  cynnamonnum  dixit  fragare. 
The  same  answer  is  given  in  the  Rom.  Nilantii. 

In  Marie  de  France  and  in  her  dependents,  and  also 
in  Bozon,  the  first  animal  questioned  is  eaten  by  the 
Wolf  (in  Bozon,  Lion),  because  it  spoke  the  truth  ;  a 
second  animal  is  killed  because  it  lied  ;  and  the  third 
animal,  refusing  to  commit  itself,  is  silent  in  Bozon, 
while  in  Marie  de  France  and  in  her  dependents,  it  says, 
the  breath  of  the  Wolf  is  cnUx  dons.  This  gradation 
is  found  only  here,  and  hence  Bozon  could  have  gotten 
it  nowhere  else. 

The  motif  of  the  Ape  keeping-  silent  is  peculiar  to 
Bozon.  Whether  or  not  he  knew  a  version  of  this  fable 
with  such  a  motif  can  only  be  conjectured.  It  may  be 
that  for  this  motif  Bozon  is  dependent  upon  an  oral 
version  with  which  he  became  acquainted  through  the 
folk.  It  is  also  possible  that  this  motif  is  original  with 
him,  for  we  find  another  variant  in  the  Cy  nous  dit  col- 
lection mentioned  above  ^^.  Here  the  Fox  replies  to 
the  Lion : 

Certes,  Monseigrneur,  je  sui  tons 
enreumez,  je  ne  sens  riens  ^^ ! 
It  is  plain,  then,   that   Bozon  has  not   taken  this 


17.  Cf.  p.  27. 

18.  Cf.    C.  M.  de  Bozon,  p.  238,  note  23. 


28 


fable  from  the  Rom.  Vulg-aris  tradition.  The  g:eneral 
motifs  agree  closely  with  those  in  Marie  de  Prance. 
The  beg-inning-  and  end  are  wanting-  in  Bozon,  but 
his  fable  is  only  a  simple  abridg-ment  of  the  longer 
fable  of  Marie.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  this  fable  is  not 
in  Odo  of  Sherington. 

IV.      WOLF   AND   HKDGF^HOG. 

Versions:  Marie  de  France  71  ;  Rom.  Treverensis 
62  ;  Bozon  42. 

This  fable  has  not  been  widely  current.  Outside  of 
Marie  de  Prance  and  the  texts  dependent  on  her,  it  is 
found  only  in  a  collection  of  stories  published  by  von 
Hahn  ^^.  It  is  not  surprising-,  therefore,  to  find  that 
Bozon  ag-rees,  throughout,  very  closely  with  Marie  de 
Prance. 

Both  fables  begin  in  the  same  manner.  Compare 
Bozon : 

Le  lou  prist  un  agneile  e  fui  sui  des 
chiens  et  des  bastons,  e  prist  son  congee 
del  hericeoun  d'  eschaper  au  bo  is, 
and  Marie  de  Prance  : 

Un  aignel  prist  li  lous  un  jour. 
Si  r  escrierent  li  pastur 
Li  chien  li  vunt  apres  huant, 
K  il  s'  en  vet  al  bois  fuiant. 

(vv.  9-12.) 
Compare  also  Bozon : 

*'  Ha"  !     dist  le  herison,  "  baisez  moy  a 
conge  prendre," 
and  Marie  de  Prance  : 

Li  hericuns  li  a  crie  : 

**Baise  mei  veals,  par  charite." 

(vv.  19-20.) 


19.  Cf.  J.  G.  von  Hahn,  Griechische  und  Albanesische  Mar- 
cheti,  2  Vol.,  lyeipzig-,  1864  (cited  by  Warnke,  'Die 
Quellen  der  Marie  de  France,'  Forschungen  zur  ro- 
manischen  Philologie  (Festg^abe  fiir  Suchier),  p.  221). 


29 


still,  further,  Bozon : 

Au  beisere  le  hericeon  lui  erda 

al  menton,  1'  autre  escowe  la  teste 

e  ceo  veut  deliverer,  mes  ceo  ne  fust 

pur  rien  :  od  lui  maugree  le  seon  lui  porta. 

Marie  : 

Li  lous  baisa  le  hericun 
K  il  s'  aert  a  sun  mentun 


U  il  volist,  u  ne  deigfnast 

Al  lou  estut  qu'  il  1'  en  portast. 

(vv.  25-30.) 

Here  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  Bozon's  depen- 
dence on  Marie  de  France.  In  the  Rom.  Treverensis, 
the  fable  is  more  elaborate  and  offers  several  peculiari- 
ties which  are  foreig-n  to  Marie  de  Prance  and  to  Bozon. 
One  example  may  serve  to  illustrate  this  fact.  The 
Wolf  says  to  the  Hedg-ehog- : 

Jace,  misera  bestiola,  et  defenda  te  a 
canibus  !     ego  vero  fug-iam  in  latebras 
silvarum  ut  salvus  effugiam. 

The  fable,  as  represented  by  Bozon,  is  an  abridg- 
ment of  the  fable  of  Marie  de  Prance,  but  unless  the 
one  were  an  actual  translation  of  the  other,  two  fables 
could  hardly  be  more  similar.  Bozon's  use  of  words  and 
phrases  that  occur  also  in  the  version  of  Marie  de 
Prance  is  especially  striking. 

V.       MONKKY    AND    CHILD. 

Versions:  Marie  de  France  51;  Rom.  Treverensis 
41  ;  Alex.  Nequam  (De  Naturis  Rerum)  chap.  129 ; 
Jacques  de  Vitry  143 ;  Rom.  Bernensis,  Primus,  27 ; 
Bozon  47. 

One  meets  with  this  fable  but  twice  in  Hervieux 
(Vol.  II)  ;  namely,  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis  and  the 
Rom.  Bernensis,  (Primus).  It  occurs  also  in  Marie  de 
France.  The  Rom.  Treverensis  and  Marie  de  France, 
which,  naturally,  resemble  each  other,  have  some  traits 
in  common  with  Bozon  as  opposed  to  every  other  known 
version  of  this  fable. 

30 


a.  In  Bozon,  Marie  de  France  and  the  Rom.  Trev- 
erensis,  the  Monkey  first  shows  its  child  to  the  Lion. 
In  the  Rom.  Bernensis,  Alexander  Nequam  and  Jacques 
de  Vitry  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Lion. 

h.  In  Bozon,  Marie  de  France  and  the  Rom.  Trev- 
erensis,  the  Monkey  is  grieved  at  the  answer  of  the 
Lion  and  approaches  the  Bear. 

Compare  Bozon : 

Le  sieng-e  s'  en  departi  corucee  e  vynt 
al  ourse  e  demanda  coment  liii  fust 
avys  de  son  beal  fiz. 

and  Marie  de  France  : 

Cele  s'  en  va  triste  e  dolente. 
Un  urs  encuntree  en  mi  la  sente. 
Li  urs  estut,  si  1'  esg-uarda. 

(vv.  13-15.) 

c.  Bozon : 

"Hay  !  "     fet  le  ours,  "est  celui  le  beal 
enfant  de  qi  homme  parle  tant  ?  " 

Marie  de  France : 

"Vei  jeo,"  fet  il,  "iluec  1'  enfant, 
Dunt  les  bestes  parolent  tant 
Ki  tant  par  est  bels  e  g-entiz  ?  " 

(vv.  17-19.) 
In    the    Rom.    Treverensis   the   Monkey   has    two 
children  instead    of  one,    as  in  Marie   de    France  and 
Bozon.     The  Bear  says  to  the  Monkey : 

Illi  essent  fiUii  quos  omnes  bestie  sic  laudassent? 
This  is  but  one  of   many  examples  which  tend  to 
prove  that  Bozon  is  not  dependent  on  the  Rom.  Trever- 
ensis for  any  of  his  fables  ^^. 

d,  Bozon : 

"  Soffrez,"  dit  le  ours,  "qe  jeo  lui  beise, 
qe  tant  ay  desire  de  aver  veii." 

Marie  de  France  : 

Bailliez  le  9a,  tant  que  jol  bes ; 
Kar  jeol  vueil  veeir  de  plus  pres. 

(vv.  21-22.) 


20.   Cf.    p.  30. 

31 


e.  In  Bozon  and  in  Marie  de  France  the  Lion  takes 
the  Monkey's  child  and  devours  it. 

The  reflection  of  the  Monkey  in  Bozon  when  it  sees 
its  child  devoured,  is  lacking-  in  all  other  versions  of 
this  fable.  Possibly  it  is  original  with  our  author.  In 
the  Rom.  Bernensis  (Primus)  and  in  Jacques  de  Vitry, 
the  fable  is  further  extended  by  a  description  of  the 
revenge  of  the  Monkey. 

This  fable,  as  has  just  been  pointed  out  ~\  occurs 
in  two  different  forms.  In  the  first  g-roup  of  texts : 
Nequam,  the  Rom.  Bernensis  (Primus)  and  Jacques  de 
Vitry,  the  Bear  alone  is  mentioned;  in  the  second  g-roup: 
Marie  de  France,  the  Rom.  Treverensis  and  Bozon,  the 
Monkey  first  approaches  the  Lion  and  then  the  Bear. 

As  has  been  stated,  this  fable  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  very  popular ;  it  is  not  found  in  the  Rom. 
Vulg-aris  tradition,  nor  in  Odo  of  Sherington.  A  com- 
parison of  the  texts  of  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France,  as 
shown  above,  is,  I  think,  sufficient  proof  that  Bozon  has 
here  followed  Marie  de  France. 

VI.      CAT   AS   BISHOP. 

Versions:  Marie  de  France  101;  Rom.  Treverensis 
132 ;  Bozon  50. 

Outside  of  the  sermons  of  Bozon,  this  fable  is  met 
with  only  in  Marie  de  France  and  the  Rom.  Treverensis. 
Fable  14  of  Odo  of  Sherington,  entitled :  De  Catto  qui 
se  fecit  Monachiini^  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  fable. 
It  is  strange  that  the  editors  of  the  Contes  did  not 
observe  the  relation  which  exists  between  Bozon  and 
Marie  de  France  101  (DeCatto  infulato).  The  fable  in 
both  authors  begins  in  the  same  manner. 

Bozon  : 

Le  chat  sit  sur  le  fourure  e  vynt  la 
sorice  champestre  e  la  sorice  ewestre  .   .  . 

Marie  de  France : 

Unz  chaz  seeit  desur  un  fur 


Vit  le  mulet  e  la  suriz. 

(vv.  1-3.) 


21.     Cf.    p.  31. 

32 


In  Bozon  three  species  of  mice  come  before  the  Cat; 
in  Marie  de  France  the  Cat  sees  le  mulet  et  la  suriz. 
The  use  of  the  three  species  of  mice  by  Bozon  can  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  throughout  his  fables 
are  found  many  expressions  of  a  light,  jocular  tone 
which  were  well  adapted  to  awaken  interest  among  the 
class  of  people  with  whom  he  had  to  deal  ^^. 
Compare  further  Bozon : 

Ordre  !     Ordre  !     vous  estez  de  una  subicion, 
jeo  sui  vostre  evesque ;  venez,  (si)  pernez 
ma  beniceon ; 
and  Marie  de  France  : 

Sis  apela 

B  dist  que  lur  evesques  fu 
E  que  mal  cunseil  unt  eu 
Que  sa  benei^un  n'  aveient. 

(vv.  4-8.) 
The  Mice,  on  refusing  to  approach,  say  in  Marie  de 
France  that  they  would  rather  die  than  come  under  the 
Cat's  claws.     In  the  Rom.  Treverensis  : 

Carius  est  michi  ut  moriar  paganus 

quam  quod  sub  vestra  manu  fiam  christianus. 

Bozon  shows  his  humor  with : 

Nenil,  jeo  voil  meu'x  estre  ici  od  ta 
maliceon^  qe  venir  plus  pres  pur 
aver  ta  beneiceoil. 


22.  For  example,  in  the  fable  Wolf  and  Lamb  (Bozon  par.  49) : 
The  distinctive  feature  in  this  fable  is  that  the  Wolf  and  the 
Lamb  come  to  the  river  to  wash  their  feet.  It  would  be  in  vain,  I 
think,  to  search  for  a  version  in  which  this  motif  is  found.  I  see, 
in  the  use  of  this  phrase,  the  expression  of  a  light  vein  of  humor 
which  is  common  with  our  author  and  which  crops  out  in  other 
places  in  the  fables.     Several  such  examples  may  be  noted  : 

1.  Par.  26,  Cock  and  Jewel:  the  Cock  finds  a  gold  ring,  and 
not,  as  in  all  the  other  versions  of  this  fable,  a  precious  stone. 

2.  Par.  30,  Fox  and  Plowman :  the  Fox  keeps  one  eye  open. 

3.  Par.  116,  Fox  and  Pigeon :  the  Fox  says  its  sack  is  torn 
and  all  its  tricks  have  escaped. 

4.  Par.  142,  Ass'  Heart :  the  Fox  judges  the  urine  of  the 
Lion,  and  the  Ass  beg-s  leave  to  g-o  home  to  make  its  will. 

Still  other  such  examples  may  be  found.  All  these  just  men- 
tioned bring-  in  new  motifs,  as  in  this  fable  of  the  Wolf  and  Ivarab 
washing-  their  feet  in  the  river.  I  doubt  whether  this  motif  can 
be  explained  in  any  other  manner. 


33 


Except  in  the  case  of  a  literal  translation  it  would 
be  hard  to  find  two  versions  more  similar  than  those  of 
Marie  de  France  and  Bozon.  Bozon,  assuredly,  knew 
the  fables  of  Marie  de  France  and  it  is  from  this  collec- 
tion that  he  drew  his  fable. 

VII.      SHKKP   AND   WOI.F   BEJFORB   LION. 

Versions:  Rom.  Vulgaris  I,  4;  Rom.  Nilantii  I,  4; 
Marie  de  France  4 ;  Rom.  Treverensis  4 ;  Odo  of  Sher- 
ing-ton  23  ;  Bozon  55. 

We  have  here  the  familiar  fable  of  Ovis^  Cants  et 
Lufus  of  Phaedrus  '^"^ .  This  fable  has  been  widlely 
known ;  it  is  found  in  the  Rom.  Nilantii,  the  Rom. 
Treverensis,  the  Rom.  Vulgaris,  Marie  de  France  and 
Odo  of  Sherington. 

In  Bozon  the  actors  are  louf^  gofil^  corf^  mastyn 
and  herhys;  in  Marie  de  France,  chiens^  escujles^  lous  and 
herhiz;  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis,  canis^  lupus^  milvus 
and  ovis.  In  short,  there  is  no  known  version  of  this 
fable  in  which  the  actors  correspond  with  those  in 
Bozon,  nor  is  it  hardly  possible  that  he  knew  of  any 
such  version  in  which  these  characters  figure. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  exemplum  immediately 
preceding  the  fable  under  discussion  in  Bozon  ^*  says 
something  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  Crov7  and  of 
the  Fox.  This  fact  may  have  influended  our  author  in 
the  employment  of  witnesses  for  the  Wolf  ^  ^ .     Mastyn 


23.  Cf.    Havet,  fable  18,  pag-e  19  ;  Hervieux,  Vol.  11,  fable  17, 

p.  13. 

24.  Cf.    C.  M.  dc  Bozon,  par.  55,  p.  77. 

25.  A  similar  dependence,  apparently,  of  fable  upon  exertip- 
luni  in  reg-ard  to  the  actors  in  the  fable  will  be  found  in  Bozon, 
par.  116  (fable  of  Fox  and  Pig-eon). 

Bozon  in  this  fable  ag-rees,  in  g-eneral,  with  the  common  form 
of  all  the  Western  versions.  He  has,  however,  one  very  striking- 
peculiarity  ;  that  is,  the  Dove  plays  the  role  attributed  to  the  Cat 
in  all  other  known  versions,  the  Ivatin  as  well  as  the  French. 
Herlet  wishes  to  explain  this  remarkable  variation  by  assuming- 
that  Bozon  has  confounded  two  fables  found  in  Marie  de  France  ; 
namely,  (i)  fable  98,  De  Caito  et  Vulpe,  and  (2)  fable  61,  De  Vulpe 
et  Columba.  Herlet  believes  that  Bozon  has,  throug-h  a  failing-  of 
memory,  broug-ht  the  Dove  into  his  fable.  This  supposition  is 
possible,  of  course,  and  it  would  not  be  an  unique  case,  since  in 
the  fable  of  Sheep  and  Wolf  before  Lion  there  appears  to  be  a  con- 
fusion in  Bozon's  mind  between  the  two  traditions  of  this  fable. 

34 


recalls  the  Dog-  in  Marie  de  France  which  acts  there, 
and  in  other  versions  also,  as  accuser  of  the  Sheep. 

This  fable,  as  presented  by  Bozon,  offers  other 
striking-  peculiarities.  In  the  first  place,  in  all  the  ver- 
sions mentioned  above,  except  in  Bozon  and  Odo  of 
Shering-ton,  the  Dog  accuses  the  Wolf.  Secondly,  all 
versions,  with  the  exception  of  Odo  of  Shering-ton  and 
Bozon,  ag-ree  in  that  the  Dog  swears  to  have  loaned  the 
Sheep  some  bread ;  Bozon  and  Odo  alone  ag^ree  in  that 
the  Wolf  is  accused  of  devouring-   the   companions   of 


But  it  seems  strange  that  Bozon,  who  appears  to  know  the  fables 
so  well,  should  be  guilty  of  such  an  error. 

I  believe  that  the  substitution  of  the  Dove  for  the  Cat  was  for 
a  definite  purpose.  If  one  will  examine  par.  116,  on  which  the 
fable  depends,  one  will  find  that  a  certain  kind  of  dove  is  men- 
tioned which  lives  on  the  fruit  of  a  tree  fonnd  in  India.  The 
fable  begins  thus . 

Kn  la  terre  de  Inde  est  trovee  un  arbre, 

com  dit  le  livre,  de  merveillouse  grandour. 

.     .     .     Knqi  habitent  une  manere  de 

colombes  qe  sunt  sustenus  de  cest  fruit. 
And  farther  on  . 

I^a  arbre  de  vie  est  la  croiz  joignant 

a  la  rivere  de  ces  costez  qe  fruit  nous 

rend  de  sustenance  e  de  savacion, 

IJn  la  umbre  de  cest  arbre  meynent 

les  columbes,     .     .     .     mes  soulement 

le  columbe  meynt  en  eel  arbre. 
Bozon  has  chosen  the  fable  of  Cat  and  Fox  to  illustrate  this 
exemplum.  With  the  usual  freedom  with  which  our  author  treats 
his  subjects,  and  especially  his  fables,  it  is  not  surprising  that  he 
has  substituted  for  the  Cat  the  Dove,  to  a  certain  species  of  which 
the  exemplum  has  reference,  for  the  Dove,  of  course,  can  take 
refuge  in  a  tree  as  well  as  the  Cat.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
the  fables  of  Bozon  are  dependent  on  the  exemplum,  and  not  vice 
versa.  The  order  adopted  by  Bozon  is  difi^erent  from  that  of  col- 
lections in  which  fables  are  the  principal  feature  of  discourse  ;  it 
is  the  philosophic  thesis  that  occupies  the  first  rank  with  Bozon, 
and  the  fable,  instead  of  preceding,  follows  it.  With  Odo  of 
Sherington,  for  example,  the  exempla  are  more  independent,  and 
the  allegorical  explanations  (that  is,  the  fable,  or  story)  appended 
to  them  possess  distinctive  features.  They  form  a  collection  of 
interesting  stories.  With  Bozon,  however,  the  fable  or  story 
which  follows  the  exemplum.  serves  as  a  symbolical  interpretation. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  how  many  similar  cases  there  are  in 
Bozon  in  which  it  appears  that  the  subject  of  the  exem.plum,  in 
question  has  an  influence  on  the  choice  of  actors  in  the  fable  that 
follows.     I  have  found  the  following  instances  : 

(1)  In  par.  21  the  exemplum  treats  of  the  nature  of  the 
Rabbit  ;  the  fable  of  the  Wolf  and  Rabbit  immediately  follows. 

(2)  In  par.  55  it  is  stated  that  the  Crow  has  a  great  friend- 
ship for  the  Fox  ;  the  fable  of  the  Sheep  and  Wolf  before  the  Lion 
follows.    The  witnesses  of  the  Wolf  are  the  Crow,  Fox  and  Mastyn. 

35 


the  Sheep  and  its  Lamb.  It  would  appear  from  this 
that  Bozon  knew  the  fable  as  found  in  Odo  of 
Shering-ton. 

Compare  Bozon : 

Le  lion  tient  sa  court  e  vynt  le  berb5^s, 
si  se  pleint  del  lou  qe  il  out  toilet  son  aig-nel; 
and  Odo  of  Shering-ton : 

Oves  conquestae  sunt  Leoni  de  Lupo, 
eo  quod  furtive  et  aperte  socias  suas 
devoravit.     Leo  cong^reg-avit  concilium. 

Thus  far  only  does  Bozon  agree  with  Odo  of  Sher- 
ingfton.  In  the  latter,  the  lion  orders  the  Wolf  to  be 
hung",  tog-ether  with  his  witnesses.  In  Bozon,  althougfh 
not  stated  distinctly,  the  Sheep  suffers  the  same  fate  as 


(3)  In  par.  61  we  find  : 

Columbe  est  de  tiel  nature  que,  etc. ; — 
The  fable  of  Fox  and  Dove  follows. 
Compare  also  (same  chapter): 

Sicom  dit  Jere,  le  prophete  par  ensample 

del  columbe  :  "Seitetz,"  dit  il,"  semblablez 

al  columbe,  e  pernez  vostre  recet  en  la 

piere  perc^e    .     .     . 
In  line  1  and  4  of  the  fable  we  find : 

Le  g"opil  passa  desouz  un  roche, 

si  g-arda  amont  e  vist  U7i  colutnbe 

seer  en  haut     .     .     .     (line  4)  qe  de 

seer  amont  entre  les  freides  pieres. 
All  the  other  versions  of  this  fable  have  the  Dove  sitting-  in  a 
tree,  or  on  a  perch,  not,  as  in  Bozon,  among"  the  rocks. 

(4)  Par.  120  concerns  the  nature  of  the  pig-  and  ass ;  the 
fable  of  Ass  atid  Pig  follows. 

(5)  Par.  131  speaks  of  the  nature  of  the  ass  and  colt.  In  the 
fable  which  follows  {Lion  and  Companions)  the  companions  of 
the  L/ion  are  the  Goat  and  Colt. 

(6)  Par.  132  discusses  the  nature  of  the  ass  and  sheep ;  the 
fable  of  Man,  Son  and  Ass  follows. 

(7)  Par.  142 : 

Grant  diversetee  de  nature  est  entre 

le  asne  e  le  motoun,     .     .     .     ; 
the  fable  of  Ass'  Heart  (which  has  as  its  actors  the  Lion,  the  Fox 
and  the  Ass)  follows.     In  all  other  versions  of  this  fable,  except 
in  the  oldest,  the  Stag  and  not  the  Ass,  as  in  Bozon,  is  the  victim 
of  the  lyion. 

It  seems  to  me  that  a  close  examination  of  the  examples  just 
given  will  throw  some  new  light  upon  the  character  of  the  work 
of  Bozon,  and  will,  in  a  great  measure,  explain  the  peculiarities 
which  are  prominent  in  some  of  his  fables.  However,  it  is  not 
wise  to  depend  too  much  on  this  explanation,  for  fables  are  met 
with  thronghout  the  text  which  are  not  affected  at  all  by  the  pre- 
ceding exemplum  in  regard  to  the  choice  of  actors  in  the  fable.    - 

36 


in  the  Rom.  Vulg-aris  tradition  and  in  Marie  de  Prance  ; 
that  is,  it  has  to  part  with  its  wool.  This  fact  shows 
that  the  fable  has  become  disintegfrated,  and  leads  one 
to  suspect  that  the  Rom.  Vulg-aris  and  the  Ang-lo-Latin 
Romulus  tradition  have  been  compressed  here  ^^.  An- 
other conclusive  proof  of  this  confusion  is  that  in  Bozon 
the  sheep  is  condemned,  as  in  the  Rom.  Vulgaris  and 
the  Ang-lo-Latin  Romulus  tradition,  although,  in  Bozon, 
it  is  accused  of  nothing.  It  would  seem  strange  that 
the  Sheep,  which  came  before  the  Lion  to  make  com- 
plaint against  the  Wolf  for  the  loss  of  her  lamb,  should 
be  condemned.  In  Odo  of  Sherington,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Wolf  and  witnesses  are  condemned,  not  the 
sheep. 

To  explain  this  incong-ruity  in  the  fable  of  Bozon  ; 
namely,  that  the  plaintiff  (sheep)  is  condemned,  it  is 
necessary  to  suppose  that  he  was  acquainted  with  a  ver- 
sion which  belonged  to  the  Rom.  Vulgaris,  or  to  the 
Anglo-Latin  Romulus  tradition,  as  well  as  with  the 
version  in  Odo  of  Sherington,  and  that  he  confounded 
the  two  versions.  Doubtless  his  sermons  had  been 
preached  more  than  once  before  they  were  written  down, 
so  that  they  were  many  opportunities  for  such  a  confu- 
sion as  occurs  in  the  fable  in  question  to  arise.  It  is  in 
this  way  only,  according  to  my  view,  that  the  peculiar 
features  in  the  fable  under  discussion  can  be  explained. 

But  Bozon  is  dependent,  for  the  most  part,  upon 
Marie  de  France  rather  than  upon  the  Rom.  Vulgaris 
tradition  for  this  fable. 

Compare  Bozon : 

Quant  le  lou  ad  pris  ceo  qe  lui  flest, 

lors  vynt  le  gopil  tot  ^r^5/,  e  le  corf  ne 

veut  mye  tart^  ne  le  mastyn  de  prendre  sa  :^art^ 

and  Marie  de  Prance  : 

Li  chiens  i  vient,  sa  part  en  porte, 

K  li  escufles  d'  altre  part, 

E  puis  li  lous,  trop  li  est  tart. 

(vv.  28-30.) 


26.     Another  example  of  this  crossing-  of  traditions  occurs  in 
the  fable  of  Owl  and  Hawk  ;  see  p.  18. 

37 


A  g-lance  at  the  above  is  sufficient  to  recognize  that 
Bozon  is  here  imitating  Marie  de  France.  The  Rom. 
Vulgaris  simply  offers  : 

Coacta  vero  ante  tempus  lanas  suas 

vendidisse  dicitur,  ut  quod  non 

accepit  redderet. 

VIII.      FOX   AND   DOVE. 

Versions:  Marie  de  France  61;  Rom.  Treverensis 
51 ;  Jacques  de  Vitry  20 ;  Rom.  Bernensis,  Primus  32  ; 
Bozon  61. 

Bozon  in  this  fable  closely  resembles  Marie  de 
France  in  De  Vulfe  et  Columhe.  In  all  versions  not 
connected  with  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus  tradition,  a 
substitution  of  some  other  animal  for  the  dove  is  made. 
In  the  Rom.  Bernensis  (Primus)  we  find  aviciila;  in  the 
Roman  de  Renart^  a  titmouse,  and  also  a  bird  called 
masange  ^''^;  in  Tsengrimus^  a  Hen;  in  Caxton,  a  Cock; 
in  Jacques  de  Vitry,  a  masange.  The  fact  that  Bozon 
has  the  Dove  will  place  him  as  dependent  on  the  Anglo- 
Latin  Romulus  tradition.  The  fable  is  not  in  Odo  of 
Sherington. 

In  Bozon,  as  in  Marie  de  France  and  the  Rom.  Tre- 
verensis, the  Fox  seeing  a  Dove  on  a  perch  (rock,  in 
Bozon)  begs  it  to  come  down.  The  use  of  the  word 
rock  or  stones  in  Bozon  (les  freides  pieres,  1.  4),  instead 
of  perch,  or  tree,  as  in  Marie  de  France  and  the  Rom. 
Treverensis,  can,  I  think,  be  explained  from  the  exem- 
plum  which  immediately  precedes  the  fable.  We  find 
there: 

Columbe  est  de  tiel  nature  qe  james  ne  est 
seiire  en  ville  ne  en  champe.  .  .  . 
Sicom  dit  Jere.  le  prophete  par  ensample  del 
columbe,  "Seitetz,"  dit  il,"  semblablez  al 
columbe,  e  pernez  vostre  recet  en  la  piere 
percee." 
By  having  the  Dove  perched  among  the  rocks,  a 
place  of  safety,   the  fable  would,   in  this  manner,  be 


27.     Branch  II,  vv.  469-602. 

38 


brought  in  closer  touch  with  the  exemplum.  This  de- 
pendence of  fable  on  exefn-plum  is  one  of  the  chief  char- 
acteristics of  literature  of  the  Bozon  type. 

In  Bozon  and  in  Marie  de  France  the  Fox  tells  the 
Dove  of  the  universal  peace  that  has  been  declared  by 
the  King-  of  Beasts. 
Bozon: 

Les  lettres  sont  venuz  de  la  court  le  roy 
qe  touz  serroms  de  un  acord,  e  nul  ne  fra 
grevance  a  autre  desornemes; 
and  Marie  de  France: 

Uns  bries  i  vint  de  part  le  rei 
Ki  comanda  par  dreite  fei 
Que  beste  a  altre  ne  mesface 
N'a  nul  oisel  .... 

(vv.  13-16.) 
We  have,  next,  in  Bozon  a  horseman  who  approaches 
with  four  greyhounds;  in  Marie  de  France  there  are  two 
horsemen  and  two  dogs;  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis,  two 
men  on  horses  with  dogs. 

The  Fox's  reason  for  fleeing  from  the  dogs  is  the 
same  in  Bozon  as  in  Marie  de  France. 
Bozon: 

Jeo  ne  sui  pas  certeyn  qe  les  chienz 
ont  veil  les  lettres. 
Marie  de  France: 

Ne  sai  s'il  unt  le  brief  oi, 
Ki  vint  del  rei,  jo  vus  afi. 

(vv.  29-30.) 
This  fable  throughout,  in  regard  to  its  general 
motifs,  agrees  with  the  corresponding  fable  in  Marie  de 
France.  Versions  not  dependent  on  Marie,  except  Cax- 
ton,  bring  in  a  new  motif.  The  Fox,  in  order  to  capture 
the  bird,  begs  it  to  close  its  eyes  while  he  kisses  it. 
This  same  motif  is  found  in  a  fable  entitled  Vulpes  et 
Avicula  "^^  and  also  in  De  Gallo  et  Vtdpe  of  the  Rom. 
Treverensis  ^®.     There    seems   to   be    a   confusion  be- 


28.  Cf.  Hervieux,  Vol.  II,  Rom.  Bernensis,  (Primus)  p.  311. 

29.  Cf.  Hervieux,  Vol.  II,  Rom.  Treverensis,  p.  598. 


39 


tween  this  fable  as  found  in  Bozon  and  that  of  the  uni- 
versal peace  fable  as  found  in  Marie  de  France  and  her 
dependents.  The  version  in  Jacques  de  Vitry,  also,  is 
influenced  by  the  episode  in  the  Roman  de  Renart^  as  is 
shown  by  the  use  of  the  word  Ttiasange.  This  confusion 
is  not  apparent  in  the  fable  of  Bozon,  for  he  has  fol- 
lowed the  Angflo-Latin  Romulus  tradition,  where  the 
kissing-  motif  mentioned  above  does  not  occur. 

Whether  Marie  de  France  was  here  the  direct  source 
of  Bozon  can  not  be  determined  with  any  degree  of  cer- 
tainty, although  his  fable  is  nearer  that  of  Marie  de 
France  than  any  other  version.  It  is  at  least  certain 
that  the  fable  belongs  to  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus 
tradition. 

IX.      RAT   SEEKING   WIFK. 

Versions:  Marie  de  France  73;  Rom.  Treverensis 
116;  Odo  of  Sherington  63  and  25  (Pseudo-Odo  of  Sher- 
ington,  Collectio  Prima);  Rom.  Bernensis,  Prin^us  42; 
Bozon  75. 

The  oldest  form  of  this  fable  known  to  us  is  found 
in  the  Pantschatantra  ^^.  But  the  fable  was  already 
known  in  England  at  least  as  early  as  the  end  of  the 
twelfth  century,  since  we  find  it  in  Marie  de  France  and 
in  her  dependents.  At  this  time  the  story  collections 
of  the  East  had  not  penetrated  into  Western  Europe, 
hence  this  fable  must  have  come  to  England  through 
folk  tradition.  Many  changes,  therefore,  in  the  fable 
could  easil}^  have  taken  place,  and  it  is  not  surprising 
to  find  that  it  exists  in  the  ^sopic  fable  collections 
under  two  different  forms. 

In  one  form  of  the  fable  the  mother  of  the  Rat 
appears,  while  in  the  other  form  the  mother  is  omitted 
and  the  fable  makes  mention  only  of  the  Rat,  which, 
although  feminine  in  the  older  versions,  becomes  mascu- 
line in  Marie  de  France  and  in  her  dependents,  and 
seeks  a  wife  for  itself.  The  first  of  these  two  forms 
exists  in  a  Latin  fable  of  the  thirteenth  century,  which 


30.     Cf.  Benfey,  Bk.  Ill,  12,  p.  262. 

40 


is  found,  among-  others,  in  the  Pseudo-Odo  of  Shering:- 
ton  (Collectio  Prima)  ^'^.  The  second  form  of  our 
fable  also  occurs  in  Odo  63.  Here,  as  in  Bozon,  it  is 
the  mus  that  wishes  to  marry.  Althoug-h  the  fable  in 
Bozon  belongs  to  this  last  type  it  differs  in  one  point, 
especially  from  both  of  the  versions  found  in  Odo  of 
Shering-ton.  In  Odo  63  the  mus  (feminine  g-ender) 
desires  as  a  husband  the  most  powerful  creature  in  the 
world,  while  the  second  form  of  this  fable  in  Odo 
(Pseudo-Odo  of  Shering-ton,  Collectio  Prima)  introduces 
a  Mouse  (masculine)  that  wishes  to  marry  its  daug-hter 
to  some  powerful  creature.  This  motif  is  entirely  dif- 
ferent from  that  in  the  fable  in  Bozon,  where  it  is  nar- 
rated that  the  Rat  (masculine)  wished  to  marry  the 
daughter  of  the  Sun.  Now,  it  is  the  versions  in  Marie 
de  France  and  the  Rom.  Treverensis  only  that  agree 
with  Bozon  in  this  respect.  The  fable  in  the  Rom. 
Bernensis  (Primus),  although  it  appears  to  be  derived 
from  the  Anglo -Latin  Romulus  tradition,  has  the 
tnulotiis^  which  wishes  to  marry  the  Sun,  not  the  daug-h- 
ter of  the  Sun. 

The  fact  that  no  known  version  of  this  fable,  except 
that  of  Marie  de  France,  the  Rom.  Treverensis  and 
Bozon,  states  that  the  mouse  desires  to  marry  the 
daug-hter  of  the  Sun,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  Bozon 
has  drawn  this  fable  from  the  Ang-lo-Latin  Romulus 
tradition.  He  could  not  have  taken  it  from  the  Rom. 
Treverensis,  for  here  we  find  imilus  ^^\  hence  he  must 
have  been  inspired  by  the  version  in  Marie  de  France. 

The  fable,  as  it  appears  in  Bozon,  proves  to  be 
somewhat^  original  as  reg-ards  the  series  of  the  objects 
approached  b}^  the  Rat.  Odo  of  Sherington  63  (whose 
source,  perhaps,  is  Marie  de  France)  reduced  the  series 
of  this  author,  while  Bozon  has  enlarg-ed  it.  In  Bozon 
are  mentioned  sun,  cloud,  wind,  rain,  barn  and  mouse. 
The  series  in  Bozon  is  as  log-ical  as  that  in  Marie  de 


31.  The  date  of  this  collection  is  probably  the  middle  of  the 
fourteenth  century.  See  Hervieux,  Vol.  IV,  p.  154,  and  Herlet, 
p.  44. 

32.  Cf.  Mall,  op.  cit.,  p.  185  and  G.  Paris,  Rom.  XV  (1886), 
p.  629. 

41 


Prance,  and  when  one  considers  the  liberty  that  Bozon 
frequently  takes  in  reg-ard  to  his  fables,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  we  find  the  series  with  him  increased.  As 
M.  Mej^er  ^^  explains  this  series  the  rain  lowers  the 
wind  and  the  barn  prevents  the  rain  from  penetrating. 
Bozon  probably  considered  the  barn  as  a  more  fitting 
place  than  a  wall  or  tower  for  rats  to  inhabit. 

It  does  not  appear  that  Bozon  knew  either  of  the 
two  versions  found  in  Odo  of  Sherington;  for  while  with 
one  version  (Ixiii)  the  objects  approached  by  the  Mouse 
are  reduced  to  wind,  castle  and  mouse,  with  the  other 
version  (Pseudo-Odo  of  Sherington,  CoUectio  Prima, 
xxv)  three  new  motifs  enter:  the  Mouse  first  approaches 
the  Moon,  the  Castle  replies  that  the  Domina  is  more 
powerful,  a  Cat  kills  the  Mouse.  Whether  Odo  of  Sher- 
ington got  his  fable  from  Alfred  of  England  or  from 
Marie  de  France  is  not  to  be  discussed  here,  but  it  is 
evident  from  what  has  preceded  that  Bozon  did  not 
draw  his  fable  from  Odo  of  Sherington. 

This  fable  does  not  occur  in  the  Rom.  Vulgaris  nor 
in  its  dependents.  It  is  found  in  Hervieux  II  but  twice; 
namely,  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis  collection  and  in  the 
Rom.  Bernensis  (Primus).  It  has  been  pointed  out 
above  ^*  that  Bozon  differs  in  two  or  more  important 
motifs  from  the  Rom.  Treverensis  and  the  Rom.  Bernen- 
sis (Primus),  but  that  with  Marie  de  France  the  agree- 
ment is  complete,  with  the  exception  of  the  increase  of 
the  series  of  the  visits,  which,  I  think,  has  been  suffi- 
ciently accounted  for. 

X.      SUN   SB:eKING  WIFK. 

Versions:  Rom.  Vulgaris  I,  7;  Rom.  Nilantii  I,  8; 
Marie  de  France  6;  Rom.  Treverensis  8;  Jacques  de 
Vitry  142;  Bozon  91. 

This  is  a  variation  of  the  fable  Ranae  ad  Soleni  of 
Phaedrus  ^^;  it  has  been  widely  circulated  and  conse- 


33.  Cf .   C.  M.  de  Bozon,  p.  259,  note  75. 

34.  Cf.  pag-e  41. 

35.  Cf.  Havet,  fable  7,  p.  8;  Hervieux,  Vol.  II,  fable  VI,  p.  8. 


42 


quently  has  underg-one  much  change.  The  form  which 
we  have  here  seems  to  be  more  closely  connected  with 
fable  6  of  Marie  de  France  than  with  any  other  known 
version.  Bozon,  however,  offers  some  peculiarities  on 
account  of  which  the  connection  between  the  two  fables 
is  not  so  clear.  Below,  each  principal  motif  is  taken  up 
and  discussed  in  regard  to  its  relation  to  other  versions 
to  which  Bozon  might  have  been  indebted  for  this  fable. 

a.  In  Bozon  the  Sun  summoned  the  creatures  (?)  ^® 
to  its  court  and  asked  for  a  rich  wife.  In  Marie  de 
France  the  Sun  desired  the  aid  of  the  C7'eaUires  in  the 
selection  of  a  wife.  The  Rom.  Treverensis:  the  Sun 
wished  to  marry;  the  report  went  throug-h  the  world 
and  frightened  the  creatures.  Rom.  Vilantii  (and  also 
throughout  the  Rom.  Vulg-aris  tradition):  robbers 
attend  a  wedding-  feast;  an  old  man  tells  a  story  of  the 
Sun  wishing-  to  marry. 

From  the  indications  g-iven  above  it  is  seen  that 
Bozon  and  Marie  de  France  stand  out  alone  in  one 
respect  against  the  Rom.  Nilantii  and  the  whole  Rom. 
Vulgaris  tradition;  that  is,  in  the  motif  of  the  Sun  ask- 
ing- the  advice  of  the  creatures  in  the  selection  of  a  wife. 
It  should  be  noted  that  the  Rom.  Treverensis  has  many 
points  here  in  common  with  the  Rom.  Vulg-aris. 

In  Marie  de  France  and  in  Bozon  only,  the  Sun 
appeals  to  the  creatures.     Compare  Bozon  : 

Le  soleil  fist  jadis  somondre  a  sa  court 
(les  creatures  ?)  ;  si  les  pria  qe  ils  purveissent 
de  un  riche  dame  a  sa  femme  ; 
and  Marie  de  France  : 

Que  le  soleiz  volt  femme  prendre, 
A  tute  creature  dist 
Que  chescune  se  purveist. 

(vv.  2-4.) 

b.  Compare  Bozon : 

Les  autres  alerent  a  Destinee  a  lui 

prierent  de  conseil ; 
and  Marie  de  France  : 

Les  creatures  s'  asemblerent ; 

A  la  destinee  en  alerent, 

Si  li  mustrerent  del  soleil 

Que  de  femme  requiert  cunseil. 
(vv.  5-8.) 

36.  The  text  reads  :  Le  soleil  fist  jadis  somondre  a  sa  court  , 
.     .     .     .,  (here  the  copyist  has  omitted  some  words). 

43 


In  the  Rom.  Nilantii  the  people  raise  a  clamor  and 
Jupiter  demands  the  cause  of  it.  In  the  Rom.  Trever- 
ensis  the  people  ask  Jupiter  how  to  avert  such  a 
calamity  as  would  arise  from  the  marriage  of  the  Sun. 
Bozon  and  Marie  de  France  ag"ree,  therefore,  in  that  the 
creatures  go  to  Destiny  for  counsel,  while  the  Rom. 
Treverensis  and  the  Rom.  Nilantii  substitute  Jupiter. 

c.  The  primary  reason  in  Bozon  and  in  Marie  de 
France  why  the  creatures  go  to  Destiny,  is  in  order  to 
get  counsel  in  regard  to  the  marriage  of  the  Sun.  This 
motif  does  not  occur  in  the  other  fable  collections  men- 
tioned above  ^"^.  Here,  again,  it  is  seen  that  Bozon 
does  not  follow  the  Rom.  Vulgaris  tradition  or  the  Rom. 
Treverensis. 

d.  In  all  the  versions  of  this  fable,  that  I  have 
examined  ^^,  with  the  exception  of  the  version  in  Bozon, 
the  people  {creatures  in  Marie  de  France)  fear  to  have 
the  Sun  marry.  In  Bozon,  Destiny  tells  the  crea- 
tures {?)  ^^  of  their  folly  in  wishing  the  Sun  to  marry. 
Whether  this  last  trait  is  original  with  Bozon,  or 
whether  he  has  borrowed  it  from  some  version  with 
which  I  am  not  acquainted,  cannot  be  decided.  It  may 
be  that  this  fable  was  not  very  clear  in  the  mind  of  our 
author. 

The  reason  given  in  Marie  de  France  for  the  Sun 
not  marrying,  differs  in  part  from  Bozon.  In  Marie, 
the  creatures  fear  that  the  earth  would  become  so  hot 
and  dry  that  nothing  would  grow ;  in  Bozon,  Destiny 
says  if  the  Sun  be  reinforced,  all  the  creatures  would 
burn  up.  But  compare  this  with  Marie  de  France : 
Nule  riens  nel  purra  suffrir, 
Desuz  lui  vivre  ne  guarir. 

(vv.  19-20.) 
This  fable,  though  the  point  has  in  this  instance 
been  less  conclusively  shown  than  in  the  case  of   the 
preceding  fables,  is  to  be  classed  as  coming  from  Marie 
de  France. 


37.  Cf .  page  42. 

38.  Cf.  list  of  fable  collections  consulted,  see  Bibliography. 

39.  As  a  word,  or  words,  are  lacking  in  the  text,  I  have  sup- 
plied creatures  (as  in  Marie  de  France). 

44 


XI.       MAN   AND   TRKKS. 

Versions:  Rom.  Vulg-aris,  III,  14  ;  Rom.  Nilantii, 
II,  16  ;  Marie  de  France  49 ;  Rom.  Treverensis  32 ; 
Bozon94;  John  of  Sheppe5'^  66. 

This  was  a  very  popular  fable  in  the  Middle  Ages 
and  is  found  throughout  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus  tra- 
dition, as  well  as  in  the  Rom.  Vulgaris  and  its  depend" 
ents.  The  general  motifs  of  the  several  versions  and 
their  relation  to  one  another  will  be  seen  below. 

a.  In  Bozon  it  is  ^.  fievre  who  makes  an  axe  ;  also 
Marie  de  Prance  has  fevre  and  the  Rom.  Treverensis, 
faher.  The  Rom.  Vulgaris,  the  Rom.  Nilantii  and  John 
of  Sheppey  simply  have  homo, 

b.  In  Bozon,  and  also  in  John  of  Sheppey,  the 
fevre  (in  John  of  Sheppey  homo)  begs  of  the  tree  a 
handle.  In  the  Rom.  Nilantii,  Marie  de  France  and  the 
Rom.  Treverensis,  together  with  the  Rom.  Vulgaris, 
ih.Qfev7'e  (or  ho7no)  asks  the  trees  what  kind  of  wood  is 
best  for  an  axe-handle. 

c.  In  Bozon,  all  the  trees  refuse  to  furnish  a  handle 
for  the  axe,  but  at  last  the  auhespine  offers  itself  for 
this  purpose.  In  John  of  Sheppey  the  trees  consent  to 
furnish  the  handle,  but  no  particular  tree  is  mentioned. 
In  Marie  de  France  a  new  motif  appears.  After  con- 
sultation the  trees  tell  fho.  fevre  to  take  the  neire  esi>ine. 
In  the  Rom.  Treverensis  there  is  no  consultation ;  the 
orniLS  (wild  ash)  gives  the  handle  to  the  smith.  In  the 
Rom.  Nilantii  the  trees  command  the  olive  to  furnish 
the  handle  ;  in  the  Rom.  Vulgaris,  the  wild  olive  {okas- 
trum)  is  chosen  by  the  other  trees. 

There  appears  to  be  no  general  agreement  in  this 
motif  among  the  versions  mentioned  above,  except  that 
in  Marie  de  France  and  in  Bozon  the  thorn  is  procured 
,by  the  smith  for  the  handle  of  the  axe. 

d.  Bozon :  The  [smith  attacks  the  hawthorn  and 
cuts  it  down ; 

Marie  de  France '-  The  smith  cuts  down  the  thorn 
(/'  esfine) ; 


45 


Rom.  Treverensis:  The  smith  first  cuts  down  the 
alder  and  then  all  the  trees. 

The  Rom.  Vulgaris,  the  Rom.  Nilantii  and  John  of 
Sheppey  agree  in  that  the  smith  cuts  down  all  trees. 

e.     In   Bozon   the   thorn   reproaches   the    axe.      In 
Marie  de  France  there  is  no  dialogue  between  the  smith 
(or  the  axe)  and  the  tree.     In  all  the  other  Latin  ver- 
sions mentioned  above  the  fable  ends  with  : 
Quercus  ad  fractinum,  etc. 

It  will  be  observed  that  there  are  several  motifs 
here  which  are  common  to  Marie  de  Prance  and  Bozon, 
but  which  are  not  found  in  other  versions. 

(1)     Compare  Bozon : 

Un  fievre  fesayt  un  foiz  un  hasche 
bien  trenchant ;  et  pur  ceo  il  no  out 
poynt  manche  prest,  vynt  al  boys; 

Marie  de  France : 

Uns  fevre  fist  une  cuigniee 
Dure  e  trenchant  e  bien  forgiee  ; 
Mes  ne  s'  en  pot  nient  aidier 
Ne  od  li  ne  pot  rien  trenchier, 
De  ci  qu'  ele  fust  enmanchiee. 
B  d'  alcun  fust  apareilliee. 

Al  bois  ala 

(vv.  1-7.) 

As  noted  above  («)  the  Rom.  Vulgaris  and  the 
Rom.  Nilantii  tradition  substitute  homo  ior  fevre. 

The  motif  in  Bozon  "all  the  trees  refused,  but  at 
last  the  aubespme  offered  itself,"  is  peculiar  to  our 
author,  although  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis  the  wild  ash 
offers  itself.  In  all  other  versions  of  this  fable,  except 
in  John  of  Sheppey,  where  the  trees  willingly  offer 
themselves,  the  trees  consult  and  select  one  of  their 
number  to  furnish  the  handle.  We  must  consider  this 
motif  as  original  with  Bozon,  just  as  in  the  Rom.  Trev- 
erensis the  motif  of  the  wild  ash  offering  itself  to  the 
smith  appears  to  be  original  with  that  collection. 
Bozon,  no  doubt,  recounted  the  fables  in  his  sermons 
many  times  before  they  were  written  down,  hence  many 
cases  of  divergences  from  the  original  text  might  nat- 
urally arise. 

46 


(2)  In  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France,  only,  the  smith 
g-ets  his  handle  from  the  thorn  (in  Bozon,  auhesi>ine;  in 
Marie  de  France,  espine  neire). 

(3)  In  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France  the  smith  cuts 
down  the  thorn  only.  In  all  the  other  versions  men- 
tioned above  *",  he  begins  to  cut  down  all  the  trees. 

(4)  In  all  the  versions  of  this  fable,  except  that 
of  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France,  the  fable  ends  with  : 

Quercus  ad  Fraxino,  etc. 

(5)  In  Bozon  the  auhesi)ine  reproaches  the  axe  : 

De  moy  receiistez  vostre  honur,  e 
ore  me  fetez  tiel  deshonur  I 
Compare  this  with  Marie  de  France  : 
Mai  gueredun  li  a  rendu. 
Que  de  li  ot  sun  mancheeii 

(vv.  23-24.)  • 
It  has  been  shown  from  what  precedes  that  the 
fable  under  discussion  in  Bozon  bears  no  resemblance  to 
the  various  versions  belong-ing-  to  the  Rom.  Vulgaris 
tradition.  From  the  number  and  agreement  of  motifs 
which  are  common  to  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France  alone, 
it  is  plain  that  our  author  is  indebted  to  Marie  for  this 
fable. 

XII.      LION   AND   MOUSK. 

Versions:  Rom.  Vulgaris  I,  17  ;  Rom.  Nilantii  I, 
17  ;  Marie  de  France  16  ;  Rom.  Treverensis  17  ;  Jacques 
de  Vitry  145  ;  Spec.  Doct.  II,  116  ;  Bozon  129. 

For  this  fable  there  are  two  important  motifs  that 
Bozon  has  in  common  with  the  Rom.  Nilantii  and  Marie 
de  France,  but  which  do  not  occur  in  any  of  the  other 
familiar  fable  collections  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

In  the  first  place,  in  Bozon  as  in  Marie  de  France 
and  the  Rom.  Nilantii,  the  mouse  with  the  aid  of  its 
companions  frees  the  lion.  All  the  other  versions  of 
this  fable  that  I  have  examined  *  ^  have  a  single  mouse 
as  the  deliverer  of  the  lion. 


40.  Cf .  page  45. 

41.  Cf.  list  of  fable  collections  consulted,  see  Bibliography. 

47 


We  come  now  to  the  second  motif  which  is  common 
with  Bozon,  Marie  de  France   and  the  Rom.  Nilantii, 
but  which  does   not  appear  in  the   Rom.  Vulgaris,  in 
Jacques  de  Vitry  or  in  the  Speculum  Doctrinale. 
Bozon  says  : 

Bt  assemble  ses  compaig-nons,  e 
rongferent  les  cordez  de  la  reye  dont 
la  fosse  fust  covert,  a  lui  enseignerent 
coment  deveit  romper  la  corde  e  eschaper 
Compare  this  with  Marie  de  France  : 
Gratez  la  terre  e  vostre  pie 
Tant  qu'  afermer  vus  i  puissiez. 
E  puis  a  munt  bien  vus  sachiez. 
Que  si  purrez  9a  hors  eissir. 
E  jeo  ferai  od  mei  venir 
Altres  suriz  pur  mei  aidier 
As  cordes,  ki  ci  sunt,  trenchier. 

(vv.  32-38.) 
Compare  also  the  Rom.  Treverensis  : 

Terram  ungfulis  tuis  effossam  in 
cumulum  trahes,  et  de  cumulo 
saliendo  lacum  superare  poteris. 
With  the  Rom.  Vulgaris,  Jacques  de  Vitry  and  the 
Speculum  Doctrinale,  the  Mouse  alone  gnaws  the  net. 
No  mention  is  made  of  instructing  the  Lion  how  to  act. 
These  facts  show  conclusively,  I  think,  that  Bozon 
has  drawn  this  fable  from  the  Anglo-Latin   Romulus 
tradition   and   not    from    the    Rom.    Vulgaris,    or    its 
dependents.     Now,  as  it  appears  to  be  reasonably  cer- 
tain that  Bozon  did  not  know  the  Rom.  Nilantii  or  the 
Rom.  Treverensis  '^^,  he  most  probably  drew  it  from  the 
collection  of  Marie  de  France.     The  fable  is  not  in  Odo 
of  Sherington  or  in  John  of  Sheppey. 


42.     Cf.  pagres  30,  31. 


48 


XIII.      MAN   AND   OXEN. 

Versions:  Marie  de  France  84;  Rom.  Treverensis 
63  ;  Rom.  Robert!  18 ;  Bozon  130. 

Here  Bozon  must  have  followed  the  Anglo-Latin 
Romulus  tradition ;  the  fable  is  not  in  the  Rom.  Vul- 
garis or  in  Odo  of  Sherington,  but  it  is  found  in  Marie 
de  Prance,  the  Rom.  Treverensis  and  the  Rom.  Roberti. 
Here  again  Marie  de  France  seems  to  be  the  source  of 
Bozon,  since  our  fable  resembles  more  closely  her  version 
than  that  found  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis  or  in  the  Rom. 
Roberti. 

In  the  Rom.  Treverensis  the  riistictis  uses  a  goad  on 
the  oxen  and  loads  them  heavily,  so  that  they  complain. 
In  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France  no  mention  is  made  of 
harsh  treatment,  but  it  is  the  vile  work  of  which  the 
oxen  complain.  This  last  motif  is  not  brought  out  in 
the  Rom.  Roberti. 

On  comparing  the  following  passages  it  will  be 
seen  that  Bozon  follows  Marie  de  France  very  closely. 

Bozon : 

Malment  alowez  le  payn  e  la  cerveyse 
qe  avez  par  nostre  travailles,  quant 
de  tiel  travaille  nous  avez  encombree. 

Marie : 

Li  buef  par  ten9un  1'  assailirent, 
Si  repruverent  al  vilein. 
La  bone  cerveise  e  le  pain. 
Que  par  lur  travail  ot  eii ; 
Mes  malement  lur  a  rendu : 
Qu'  a  grant  hunte  les  demena. 

(vv.  4-9.) 

Bozon  must  have  taken  this  directly  from  Marie  de 
France.     The  phrase  in  Bozon : 

Malment  alowez  le  payn  e  la  cerveyse 
qe  avez  par  nostre  travailles, 

shows  an  unmistakable  relationship  with  Marie's 

Si  repruverent  al  vilein 
La  bone  cerveise  e  le  pein 
Que  par  lur  travail  ot  eii. 

(vv.  5-7.) 


49 


Bozon : 

Par  qui  fust  la  meison  de  fienz  emple  ? 
resembles  the  Rom.  Treverensis : 

Interrogo  te  quis  istum  fumum  concessit  ? 
but  compare  also  Marie  de  France  : 

Vus  le  femastes 

K  la  maison  en  encumbrastes. 

(vv.  13-14.) 
Notice  that  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis  there  is  but 
one  ox,  while  in  Bozon,  Marie  de  France  and  the  Rom. 
Roberti   two   oxen    are   mentioned.      Finally   compare 
Bozon : 

Ne  est  ceo  donq  reison  qe  vous  la  deliverez  ? 
and  Marie  de  France  : 

Si  lur  respunt  que  hors  le  traient 
Bien  est  dreiz  que  la  peine  en  aient. 

(vv.  17-18.) 
Outside  of  the  Ang-lo-Latin  Romulus  tradition  this 
fable  is  rarely  found.  There  is  a  version  in  the 
Dyalogiis  Creaturarum  ^^,  but  it  has  nothing-  in  com- 
mon with  Bozon.  Certain  passages  in  Bozon  and  Marie 
de  France  agree  so  closel}^  as  shown  above,  that 
hardly  any  doubt  can  exist  as  to  the  one  being  directly 
dependent  on  the  other. 

XIV.       LION   AND   COMPANIONS. 

Versions:  Rom.  Vulgaris  I,  6  ;  Rom.  Nilantii  I,  6  ; 
Marie  de  France  11 ;  Rom.  Treverensis  6  ;  Jacques  de 
Vitry  156  ;  Bozon  131 ;  John  of  Sheppey  4. 

This  fable'  exists  in  two  different  forms.  In  the 
Rom.  Nilantii  are  found  two  fables  closely  resembling 
each  other,  the  one  entitled  :  '  De  Leo7ie  Btibalo  et  Lupo 
Venatum  perg-entibus^^  and  the  other  (which  immediately 
follows  the  first):  Vacca^  Capra  et  Ove^  que:  Leoni  se 
sociaverunt.''  In  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus  tradition 
these  two  fables  also  appear,  occupying  the  same  rela- 
tive position  as  in  the  Rom.  Nilantii. 


43.     Cf.  Nicolaus  Perg-amenus,  Dyalogus  Creaturarum^  Bib- 
liothek  des  literarischen  Vereins  in  Stuttg-art,  Vol.  148. 

50 


The  companions  of  the  Lion  in  Bozon  ;  namely,  the 
chievre  and  the  foleyne  are  peculiar  to  our  author,  and 
indeed,  their  appearance  here  is  in  itself  strange.  But 
the  use  of  j)oleyne  may  be  explained,  perhaps,  by  the 
fact  that  the  exernfliim  treats  of  the  nature  of  the  Ass 
and  its  Colt,  while  in  the  second  part  of  this  double 
fable  in  Marie  de  France  the  Goat  is  one  of  the  com- 
panions of  the  Lion.  Bozon  again  offers  us  here  a 
peculiar  feature  in  that  the  prize  is  a  vcel  (calf)  and  not 
a  Stag-,  as  is  found  in  Marie  de  France  and  in  the 
majority  of  the  other  versions.  It  is,  therefore,  not 
probable  that  Bozon  knew  a  version  of  this  fable  in 
which  these  unusual  animals  occur,  for  the  Colt  and  the 
Calf  are  not  characters  commonly  appearing-  in  fable 
literature.  Such  substitutions  and  divergences  as  we 
find  them  in  Bozon  and  other  writers,  must  frequently 
have  had  their  origin  in  the  desire  of  some  author  to 
make  innovations  and  thus  to  distinguish  himself  from 
his  predecessors.  In  other  cases  he  was  probably 
endeavoring  to  better  adapt  the  fable  to  the  under- 
standing of  his  readers.  This  is  the  reason  that  motifs 
not  authorized  by  tradition,  or  even  without  any  resem- 
blance at  all  to  the  original,  have  been  inserted  in  fables 
of  the  Bozon  type. 

Bozon  probably  knew  both  forms  of  the  fable  (that 
is.  No.  1  and  No.  2  above)  **,  since  we  find  in  his  fable 
motifs  which  belong  to  the  first  as  well  as  to  the  second 
part.  In  fable  No.  1  of  the  Rom.  Nilantii  (fable  6), 
which  corresponds  to  the  first  part  of  the  fable  in  Marie 
de  France,  the  prize  is  divided  into  three  parts,  while 
in  the  second  part  of  the  fable  (fable  8),  as  also  in 
Marie  de  France  (second  part  of  the  fable),  the  Rom. 
Vulgaris,  the  Rom.  Treverensis  (fable  7)  and  John  of 
Sheppey  (fable  4)  the  division  is  made  into  four  parts. 
Bozon  in  this  respect  follows  fable  No.  1.  There  is  here 
a  close  resemblance  with  Marie  de  France. 


44.     Cf.  pag-e  50. 


51 


Compare  Bozon : 

A  moi  apent  le  tierz  partie  par 
reison  de  seig-nurie. 
and  Marie  de  France  : 

Li  letins  a  dit  e  jure. 


Que  la  primiere  part  arreit 

Pur  ceo  qu'  ert  reis  e  dreiz  esteit. 

(vv.  15-18.) 
In  reg-ard  to  the  second  division  of  the  prize  by  the 
Lion,  another  peculiarity  in  the  fable  of  Bozon  is  to  be 
noted,  which,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  found  nowhere  else 
except  in  fable  No.  2  of  the  Rom.  Nilantii  ( Vacca 
Capra  et  Ove).  Here  we  find  ^^  Leo  cervtim  prostravit.'''' 
It  is  only  in  Bozon  and  the  Rom.  Nilantii  that  the  Lion 
alone  captures  the  prize.  This  motif  is,  naturally,  in- 
troduced in  the  division  of  the  same.     So  Bozon  : 

L'  autre  partie  a  moy  apent  par  ceo  qe 
jeo  le  pris. 

The  Rom.  Nilantii  has  simply : 

Tertiam  mihi  defendo,  eo  quod  plus 
omnibus  cucurri. 
which  is  the  same  as  in  Marie  de  France. 

But  Bozon  has  not  taken  this  motif  directly  from 
the  Rom,  Nilantii  No.  2,  because  here  four  divisions  of 
the  booty  are  made,  while  in  his  fable  there  are  but 
three  divisions.  For  the  same  reason  he  has  not  drawn 
his  fable  either  from  the  Rom.  Vulgaris  tradition  or 
from  John  of  Sheppey  No.  1,  where  also  the  booty  is 
divided  into  four  parts. 

In  Bozon,  the  reason  which  the  Lion  gives  for  tak- 
ing unto  himself  the  third  part,  agrees  with  the  second 
part  of  the  fable  in  Marie  de  France,  where  four  divi- 
sions of  the  booty  are  made  : 
Compare  Bozon : 

Ore  covient   entre  nous  combatre  pur  la 
tierce  partie  ; 
and  Marie  de  France  : 

La  quatre  ai  jeo  si  divisee 
Que  nuls  ne  1'  avra  senz  meslee. 

(vv.  37-38.) 

52 


Bozon  here  follows  without  doubt  Marie,  for  in  all  the 
other  versions  of  this  fable  the  motif  of  fig-hting-  for 
the  third  (or  fouth  part)  does  not  appear.  In  the  other 
versions,  both  in  No.  1  and  No.  2,  the  Lion  warns  its 
companions  that  if  they  touch  the  third  (or  fourth) 
part  they  will  incur  his  displeasure.  This  motif  occurs 
in  the  second  part  of  the  fable  of  Marie  de  France, 
where  four  divisions  of  the  bootj^  are  made,  but  as  men- 
tioned above  *^  Bozon  was  evidently  acquainted  with 
both  parts,  so  it  is  not  surprising-  to  meet  in  his  fable  a 
motif  belong-ing-  to  fable  No.  2,  althoug-h  for  the  rest 
he  follows  No.  1. 

In  the  version  as  found  in  Jacques  de  Vitr)^,  the 
companions  of  the  Lion  (  Ove^  Cafra  et  Jtmieiitci)  seizes 
a  Stag",  just  as  is  represented  in  Marie  de  France.  The 
booty  is  divided  into  three  parts.  This  motif  is  found 
elsewhere  only  in  Marie  de  France  (and  in  the  versions 
dependent  on  Marie)  and  in  Bozon.  For  the  rest  of  the 
fable,  the  version  in  Jacques  de  Vitry  ag-rees  throug-h- 
out  very  closely  with  the  first  part  of  the  fable  of 
Marie  de  France,  but  there  is  one  point  which  proves 
that  Bozon  did  not  draw  his  fable  from  this  collection. 
In  reg-ard  to  the  third  division  the  Lion  in  Jacques  de 
Vitry  say  : 

Terciam  si  quis  acceperit  sciat  quod 
amicus  non  erit  meus. 
As  stated  above  *^   Bozon  and  Marie  de  France  alone 
agfree  in  that  the  Lion  says  that  whoever  touches  the 
third  part  will  have  to  fig"ht  him. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  episode  of  the  Lion's 
share  in  the  Roman  de  Renart  *'^  bears  no  resemblance 
to  our  fable.  Here  the  Lion  asks  first  the  Wolf  and, 
then,  the  Fox,  to  divide  the  spoil.  This  episode  is 
taken  from  the  ^Esopic  fable  of  the  Lion  hunting-  with 
the  Ass  and  the  Fox  *^  and  not  from  that  of  the  Lion 


45.  Cf.  pag-eSl. 

46.  Cf .  pag-e  52. 

47.  Cf.  Branch  XVI,  vv.  721-1504. 

48.  Cf.  Hahn,  CCLX. 


53 


and  Ass  *'',  from  which  the  fable  in  Bozon  is  derived, 
althoug-h  the  two  fables  are  no  doubt,  originally,  the 
development  of  the  same  theme.  The  two  versions  in 
Odo  of  Shering-ton  [XX  and  XXIX,  (Pseudo-Odo  of 
Sherington)  [CoUectio  Tertia]  and  John  of  Sheppey 
(V)  resemble  the  episode  in  the  Roman  de  Renart. 

In  this  fable  Bozon  offers  only  a  short  abridgment 
of  the  longer  fable  as  it  occurs  in  other  fable  collections. 
Hence,  a  comparison  with  other  texts  can  be  made  only 
in  regard  to  the  chief  motifs  of  the  fable.  It  has  been 
shown  above  that  of  all  the  versions  it  is  with  Marie 
de  France  that  Bozon  agrees  throughout,  except  that 
the  Lion  himself  in  Bozon  seizes  the  prize.  This  fable, 
therefore,  should  be  placed  as  dependent  on  Marie  de 
France. 

XV.    ass'  heart. 

Vei'sions:  Babrius  95;  Avianus  30;  Marie  de  France 
70;  Rom.  Treverensis  61;  Kirchhof  84;  Bozon  142. 

This  fable  is  of  Indian  origin  ^^.  In  the  Indian 
version  as  represented  by  Baldo  ^\  Kirchhof  and  Johan- 
nes de  Capua  ^^,  the  story  is  told,  as  in  Bozon,  of  an 
Ass,  which,  when  killed,  was  found  to  have  no  heart; 
while  in  Babrius,  Marie  de  France,  the  Rom.  Treveren- 
sis, and  also  in  the  versions  found  in  the  chronicles  of 
Fredegarius  ^^  and  Aimoinus  ^*,  it  is  the  heart  of  the 
Stag  that  the  Lion  demands  ^^. 

There  is  also  another  version  of  the  fable,  which 
belongs  to  the  Middle  Ages,  concerning  a  Boar  which 
was  found  to  have  no  heart.  The  circumstances  here, 
however,  are  very  different  from  the  earlier  version, 
having  nothing  in  common  with  our  fable.  The  later 
version  seems  to  have  been  a  popular  story  ^^. 


49.  Cf.  Hahn,  CCI^VIII ;  Babrius,  fable  LXVII. 

50.  Cf.  Benfey,  Pantschatantra  Bk.  I,  IV,  2,  p.  295. 

51.  Cf .  Du  Mlril,  Podsies  InMites  du  moyen  age,  Baldo  p.  233. 

52.  Cf.  Hervieux,  Vol.  V,  ch.  VI,  fol.  K-. 

53.  Cf.  Hervieux,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  502. 

54.  Cf.  Ibid,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  503. 

55.  This  form  of  the  fable  also  occurs  in  the  manuscript  of 
the  Bibliotheque  de  Rheims  (cf.  Hervieux,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  508),  and  in 
a  version  published  by  Hervieux,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  507. 

56.  Cf.  Avianus  30,  and  the  Gesta  Romanomon,  ch.  83. 

54 


The  various  versions  of  this  fable  may  be  most  con- 
veniently divided  into  three  groups: 

(1)  The  Oriental  Group,  with  the  Ass  as  the 
victim. 

(2)  The  Classical  Group,  where  the  Stag"  is  slain. 

(3)  The  Mediaeval  Group,  where  it  is  the  question 
of  a  Boar  without  a  heart  ^'^ . 

Another  g-rouping  may  be  made  of  the  versions  of 
this  fable  as  represented  by  the  fabulists  mentioned 
above.  Bozon,  Marie  de  Prance,  the  Rom.  Treverensis, 
Philip  of  Navarre  in  his  Gestes  des  Chii)rois  (mentioned 
by  M.  Meyer  ^^),  the  Rheims  manuscript  and  also  the 
Greek  tradition  agree  in  the  fact  that  the  Lion  is  sick, 
and  needs,  in  order  to  be  cured,  the  heart  of  the  Stag- 
(Bozon,  heart  of  the  Ass).  In  Baldo,  Fredeg-arius  and 
Aimoinus,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Lion  is  not  sick,  but 
demands  the  death  of  the  Stag*  because  it  did  not  appear 
at  court  ^^.  If  Bozon,  in  respect  to  this  last  motif, 
ag-rees  with  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus  tradition,  why  is 
it  that  we  find  with  him  the  Ass,  as  in  the  oldest  ver- 
sion, and  not  the  Stag-,  which  is  made  the  victim  of  the 
Lion?. 

There  are  several  wa3"s  in  which  Bozon  could  have 
become  acquainted  with  the  version  as  found  in  the 
Pantschatantra.  He  may  have  known,  for  example,  the 
work  of  Johannes  de  Capua  and  analagous  fable  compil- 
ations, or  he  may  have  become  acquainted  with  the  fable 
through  oral  tradition.  The  mere  fact,  however,  that 
one  of  the  actors  of  the  fable  agrees  with  the  older  ver- 
sions, rather  than  with  the  later  ones,  is  not  sufficient 
proof  to  cause  it  to  be  placed  in  the  Oriental  Group. 
The  whole  trend  of  the  fable  as  found  in  Bozon  agrees 


57.  This  group  is  called  Mediaeval  as  a  convenient  contrast, 
although  the  earliest  version  occurs  in  Avianus.  Cf.  Zeitschrift 
fiir  Vergleichende  Litteraim-geschichte,  YoX.Yll  (1894),  pp.  264-267, 

Georg-e   C.    Keidel,    'Die    Eselherz  —  (Hirschherz— ,   Kberherz— ) 
Fabel.' 

58.  Cf.   C.  M.  de  Bozon,  p.  294,  note  142. 

59.  This  motif  also  occurs  in  a  version  printed  by  Hervieux, 
Vol.  Ill,  p.  507.  In  Johannes  de  Capua  the  Lion  desired  the  heart 
and  ears  of  the  Ass  ;  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Lion  summoning 
the  animals  to  court. 

55 


closely  with  the  Classical  Group,  to  which  the  Ang-lo- 
Latin  Romulus  tradition  most  certainly  belong^s. 

It  is  possible,  however,  that  Bozon  may  have  known 
an  oral  tradition  of  this  fable  in  which  the  Ass  is  the 
victim,  as  in  the  Indian  version,  though  agreeing-  for 
the  rest  of  the  fable  with  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus 
tradition.  But,  if  such  was  the  case,  no  similar  version 
is  known  to-day;  therefore,  an  explanation  based  on  the 
probability  of  Bozon  being  acquainted  with  a  version  of 
this  fable  in  which  the  Ass  is  substituted  for  the  Stag 
should  not  be  received  too  readily.  M.  Meyer  believes^  ^ 
that  because  Bozon  introduced  this  example  in  a  chap- 
ter where  it  is  a  question  of  the  nature  of  the  Ass,  he 
must  have  known  a  version  in  which  the  Ass  was  sub- 
stituted for  the  Stag.  It  would  seem  to  me,  however — 
since  we  know  of  no  version  outside  of  Bozon  where  the 
Ass  is  substituted  for  the  Stag — more  logical  to  suppose 
that,  for  this  very  reason;  namely,  that  Bozon  intro- 
duced this  example  in  a  chapter  where  it  is  a  question 
of  the  nature  of  the  Ass,  this  substitution  was  made  so 
as  to  bring  the  fable  into  closer  agreement  with  the 
preceding  exemflum  on  which  the  fable  depends.  Ex- 
amples of  a  similar  kind  will  be  found  throughout  the 
Contes  of  Bozon,  and  need  cause  no  surprise  ^  ^ . 

Bozon,  in  common  with  other  writers  of  his  class, 
proceeded  generally  in  the  following  manner:  He  intro- 
duced the  ''property"  of  an  animal,  a  plant  or  a  rock, 
and  draws  therefrom  a  moral,  which,  furthermore,  the 
author  confirms  by  the  recital  of  some  suitable  fable, 
tale  or  anecdote.  But  the  order  adopted  by  Bozon  is 
different  from  that  of  the  other  similar  collections, 
where  the  fables  are  the  principal  subject;  with  Bozon, 
however,  it  is  the  philosophic  theme  which  occupies  the 
first  rank,  and  the  fable  or  anecdote  instead  of  preced- 
ing follows  the  exemflicm.  The  fable,  although  im- 
portant, is  only  an  accessory  to  the  cxejuplum.  It  is 
not  surprising,  then,  that  Bozon,  wherever  he  deemed  it 


60.  Cf.   C.  M.  de  Bozon,  p.  294. 

61.  Cf.  fable  of  Fox  and  Pig-eon,  p.  34,  note. 


56 


fitting-,  should  make  some  slight  changes  in  the  body  of 
the  fable;  such,  for  example,  as  the  substitution  of  a 
different  actor  in  the  fable,  or  the  addition  of  some  new 
motif. 

That  preachers,  in  making-  use  of  fables  and  apo- 
logues, allowed  themselves  such  a  license  as  the  chang- 
ing at  will  of  the  actors  of  the  fable,  we  have  abundant 
proof.  The  celebrated  editor  of  Bozon's  Contes  Moralises 
makes  an  interesting  study  of  a  collection  of  exernpla 
composed  between  1275  and  1279  by  an  Englishman  who 
belonged  to  the  Franciscan  order  of  monks  ^'^.  Accord- 
ing to  M.  Meyer,  the  author  in  more  than  one  place 
carefully  points  out  how  certain  exempla  ought  to  be 
modified  according  to  the  audience  addressed,  and,  as  an 
illustration,  the  writer  gives  an  example  of  two  versions 
of  the  story,  very  different  in  circumstances,  which  has 
as  its  base  the  legend  of  Jean  Ganebert.  This  fact, 
I  think,  will  explain  in  a  great  measure  the  peculiarities 
which  appear  in  some  of  the  fables  of  Bozon.  It  may 
be  noted,  however,  that  the  excmphim  in  par.  23  *^^  may 
also  have  influenced  Bozon,  where  the  Lion  is  repre- 
sented as  having  great  hatred  toward  the  Ass  because 
it  greatly  desires  to  eat  the  flesh  of  the  latter. 

As  has  been  said  ^*,  the  fable  in  Bozon  does  not 
agree,  except  in  title,  with  the  oldest  versions;  that  is, 
with  the  Oriental  Group,  but  rather  with  the  Classical 
Group.  Moreover,  a  comparison  of  the  fable  of  our 
author  with  the  version  of  Marie  de  Prance  will  show 
how  closely  the  former  has  followed  the  latter  in  this 
fable. 

a.  Bozon  agrees  with  Marie  de  France  (and  the 
Rom.  Treverensis)  in  the  fact  that  the  Lion  is  sick,  and 
that  the  beasts  assemble  in  order  to  advise  him  in  regard 
to  his  disease.  In  Baldo,  Fredegarius,  Aimoinus  and 
others  still  ^^,  the  motif  of  the  Lion  being  sick  does 
not  enter. 


62.  Cf.  Romania,  Vol.  XXI  (1892),  p.  303  :  Notices  et  exiraits 

des  manuscrits,  XXXIV,  P.  Meyer. 

63.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  par.  23,  p.  37. 

64.  Cf.  page  55. 

65.  Cf.  note  59,  page  55. 

57 


/;.  In  Bozon  and  in  Marie  de  France  (and  also  in 
the  Rom.  Treverensis,  which  naturally  agrees  with 
Marie')  the  animals  advise  the  Lion  to  eat  the  heart  of 
a  Stag:  (in  Bozon,  Ass).  This  is  directly  opposed  to 
the  other  versions  mentioned  above,  where  the  life  of 
the  Stag-  is  demanded  because  the  Stag-  alone  of  all  the 
beasts  did  not  appear  at  court. 

c.  In  Marie  de  France  and  in  Bozon  the  victim  is. 
present,  but  while  the  Stag  in  Marie  escapes,  the  Ass 
in  Bozon  begs  to  be  allowed  to  go  home  to  make  its 
will  »^^ 

d.  Instead  of  being  summoned  three  times  to  court, 
as  is  the  Stag  in  Marie  de  France,  the  Ass  in  Bozon  is 
beguiled  to  the  court  by  the  Fox.  This  same  motif 
occurs  in  the  chronicles  of  Fredegarius,  of  Aimoinus 
and  of  Fromundus  ^'^.  In  all  the  other  versions  men- 
tioned above,  the  Stag  (or  Ass)  returns  after  the  third 
summons. 

The  fable  of  Stag  without  a  heart  was  a  very  popu- 
lar story,  and  it  is  possible  that  Bozon  knew  it  as  it 
existed  in  the  chronicles  just  mentioned,  but  that  he 
knew  it  only  through  oral  tradition  is  still  more  likely; 
at  any  rate,  he  could  not  have  drawn  his  fable  from 
these  sources,  for  here,  as  noted  before,  the  Lion  is  not 
sick  (as  in  Bozon),  but  he  demands  the  death  of  the 
Stag  because  it  did  not  appear  at  court.  It  would  seem 
that  the  motif  of  sending  the  Fox  for  the  Stag  (or  Ass) 
has  been  added  by  later  writers  in  order  to  explain  more 
clearly  the  return  of  this  animal. 

There  is  a  fable,  however,  in  Odo  of  Sherington 
(Pseudo-Odo  of  Sherington,  Collectio  Prima)  VII 
entitled,  De  Asino  noleiite  venire  ad  Pai'liamentum 
Leonis^  in  which  the  same  motif  occurs.  The  Lion 
summons  the  animals  in  general  assembly ;  when  the}" 
had  assembled  he  asked  if  there  were  not  some  absent. 
It  was  found  that  the  Ass  was  not  present.     The  Lion 


66.  Cf.  page  33,  note  22. 

67.  In  Fromundus  we  have  the  Bear  instead  of  the  lyion  who 

summons  the  Stag-.     Cf.  Hervieux,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  505. 


58 


immediately  sends  the  Wolf  and  the  Fox  to  seek  the 
Ass  and  bring-  him  by  force,  if  necessary,  to  the  court. 
The  remainder  of  the  fable  bears  no  resembance  to 
Bozon,  but  has  a  likeness  to  the  well-known  fable  in 
the  Romulus  tradition  ®^,  where  the  Horse  asks  the 
lyion  to  examine  his  hoof  and  then  kills  the  Lion  with 
a  kick.  Bozon  may  have  known  this  fable  and  been 
influenced  by  it  for  this  motif  ;  or  he  may  have  been 
influenced  by  the  episode  in  the  Roman  de  Renart^ 
where  the  Fox  is  summoned  to  the  court  of  the  Lion, 
and  on  his  non-appearance  the  Bear  and  the  Cat  are  sent 
to  conduct  him  thither. 
e.     Compare  Bozon : 

Tost  fust  le  asne  tuee  e  deschorchee 

overet  et  defet.     Kt  en  defasaunt  le 

g-opil  embla  le  queor  e  privement  le  mang-ea ; 
and  Marie  de  France : 

Kinz  qu'  il  fust  bien  parescorchiez, 

S'  est  li  gfupiz  tant  aprismiez 

Qu'  il  lur  aveit  le  quer  emblee. 

Si  r  a  mang-ie  e  devore. 

(vv.  19-22.) 

f.  The  reason  g-iven  by  the  Fox  as  to  why  the 
Stag:  (Ass,  in  Bozon)  has  no  heart  is  the  same  for 
Bozon  and  Marie  de  France. 

Compare  Bozon: 

Remembraunce  vient  hors  de  queor,  e 
il  out  perdu  remembraunce  de  son 
peril  quant  autre  foiz  retorna  a  sa  mort. 
and  Marie  de  France: 

Saciez  qu'  il  u'  aveit  point  de  quer; 
Car  il  n'  i  venist  a  nul  fuer. 
Senz  quer  fu  e  senz  remembrance: 
Pur  ceo  revint  par  ubliance. 

(vv.  59-62.) 

g.  Bozon: 

**Bien  avet  dit,"  fet  le  leoun.     "Retornez 
sanz  chalang^e  (a  meson)." 


68.     Cf.  Hervieux,  Vol.  II,  pp.  214,  256,  336,  360,  405,  435,  470, 
493,  532,  etc. 

59 


Marie  de  France: 

Ivi  Huns  respunt  que  veir  dist: 
S'  il  eiist  quer,  ja  n'  i  venist. 
Bien  devum  le  g'upil  laissier, 
Que  seins  s'en  puisse  repairier. 

(vv.  67-70.) 
To  sum  up,  then,  the  motifs  of  this  fable  that  are 
common  to  Bozon  and  Marie  de  Prance: 

(1)  The  Lion  is  sick;  in  all  other  versions  (except 
the  Rom.  Treverensis  and  the  Rheims  manuscript)  that 
have  been  examined,  this  motif  does  not  enter. 

(2)  The  heart  of  the  Stag  (or  Ass)  is  to  cure  the 
Lion. 

(3)  The  victim  is  present  only  in  Bozon,  Marie  de 
Prance  and  the  Rom.  Treverensis.  The  Ass,  in  Bozon, 
not  being"  so  swift  as  the  Stag,  could  not  escape  so 
easily.  Bozon,  therefore,  represents  the  Ass  as  going 
home  to  make  his  will  ^^.  The  motif  that  the  Pox  is 
sent  for  the  Ass  may  be  original  with  Bozon.  But,  per- 
haps, as  already  noted  '^^,  he  may  have  known  one  of 
the  popular  versions  of  the  fable  as  found  in  the  chron- 
icles of  Predegarius  or  Aimoinus. 

(4)  A  comparison  of  the  phraseology  of  the  two 
texts  (Bozon  and  Marie  de  Prance)  shows  great  simil- 
arity. 

This  fable  is  not  in  the  collection  of  Odo  of  Sher- 
ington.  It  occurs  but  once  in  Hervieux,  Vol.  II;  name- 
ly, in  the  Rom.  Treverensis.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
but  that  Bozon  is  here  dependent  on  the  Anglo-Latin 
Romulus  tradition,  and  not  on  the  Oriental  versions  of 
the  fable.  That  he  has  followed  Marie  de  Prance  is, 
I  think,  evident. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  particular  fables  already 
mentioned  "^  the  resemblance  between  Bozon  and 
Marie  de  Prance  in  each  of  the  fables  examined  has 
been  clearly  shown,  although  this  resemblance  has  nat- 
urally been  more  evident  for  certain  fables  than  for 


69.  Cf .  pag^e  58,  note  66. 

70.  Cf.  page  55. 

71.  Cf.  page  54,  Versions. 

60 


others.  The  next  question  to  be  discussed  is,  whether 
for  these  particular  fables  Bozon  is  directly  dependent 
on  Marie  de  Prance,  or  whether  he  was  acquainted  with 
a  collection  of  fables,  now  lost,  closely  allied  to  Marie's 
fables,  but  which  had  been  somewhat  modified,  either 
by  influence  of  other  fable  collections  upon  the  author, 
or  by  reason  of  the  author's  own  individuality. 

M.  Meyer,  as  noted  in  the  Introduction  '^'^,  has  con- 
cluded that  Bozon  must  have  known  a  collection  of 
fables,  written  either  in  English  or  in  French,  and 
which  had  in  part  the  same  source  as  those  of  Marie  de 
France.  Of  the  thirty -seven  '^^  iE^sopic  fables  which 
the  distinguished  editor  of  the  Contes  Moralisi-s  notes  as 
being-  contained  in  the  Contes  of  Bozon,  the  following 
fables  are  pointed  out  by  him  as  those  which  more 
closely  resemble  the  corresponding  versions  in  Marie  de 
France: 

Bozon  47,  Monkey  and  Child  (Marie  51); 

Bozon  61,  Fox  and  Dove  (Marie  61); 

Bozon  75,  Rat  seeking  Wife  (Marie  73); 

Bozon  91,  Sun  wishing  to  Marry  (Marie  6); 

Bozon  94,  Man  and  Trees  (Marie  49); 

Bozon  130,  Man  and  Oxen  (Marie  84); 

Bozon  142,  Ass'  Heart  (Marie  70). 

For  these  seven  fables,  M.  Meyer,  in  his  comment- 
ary to  the  Contes^  has  pointed  out  the  resemblance 
between  Bozon  and  Marie  de  France,  but  he  states  "^^ 
that  the  resemblance  is  not  complete  enough  to  justify 
the  conclusion  that  Bozon  borrowed  them  directly  from 
Marie.  This  hypothesis,  he  thinks,  can  be  admitted 
only  for  the  fable  of  Man  and  Oxen  (Bozon  130).  For 
the  other  six  fables  it  is  necessary  to  suppose  that 
Bozon  desired  to  modify  the  original  text.  The  editor, 
however,  does  not  believe  that  Bozon  did  so  alter  his 


72.  Introduction,  p.  8. 

73.  This  number  may  be  increased  by  two  fables.  The  titles 
of  these  fables,  (not  g-iven  in  the  list  on  page  XVII)  (C  M.  dc 
Bozon),  are  as  follows:  par.  4,  Lion  as  Judge;  par.  42,  Wolf  and 
Hedgehog.  These  two  fables,  however,  are  noted  in  the  com- 
mentary to  the  Bozon  text. 

74.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  p.  XIX. 

61 


text,  since  the  details  of  the  fable  must  have  been  to 
him  only  of  secondary  importance ;  nor  does  he  believe 
that  the  modifications  found  in  Bozon  are  due  to  an 
imperfect  memory  on  his  part. 

Herlet  ^^  holds  that  sufficient  attention  has  not 
been  g-iven  to  the  connection  between  the  fables  of 
Bozon  and  those  of  Marie  de  Prance.  In  addition  to 
the  fables  of  Bozon  noted  by  M.  Meyer  as  being: 
dependent  on  Marie's  fables,  Herlet  adds  the  followingf : 

Bozon  18,  Peacock  and  Juno  (Marie  31); 

Bozon  23,  Lion  as  King*  (Marie  29); 

Bozon  42,  Wolf  and  Hedgehog:  (Marie  71); 

Bozon  50,  Cat  as  Bishop  (Marie  101); 

Bozon  55,  Sheep  and  Wolf  before  Lion  (Marie  4). 

Herlet  is  convinced  that  Marie  de  France  is  one  of 
the  chief  sources  of  Bozon's  fables.  If  the  ag-reement 
between  these  two  authors  is  at  times  only  imperfect, 
this  fact  should  not  hinder  one  from  acknowledg-ing:  it, 
since  it  was  characteristic  of  Bozon  not  to  follow 
strictly  his  orig-inal. 

After  a  careful  study  of  the  fables  of  Bozon,  I  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  three  other  fables  can  be 
added  to  the  list  of  fables  that  Messrs.  Meyer  and  Her- 
let have  already  g-iven  as  dependent  on  Marie  de  France. 
They  are : 

Bozon  17,  Owl  and  Hawk  (Marie  17)  '^; 

Bozon  129,  Lion  and  Mouse  (Marie  16)  '^'^; 

Bozon  131,  Lion  and  Companions  (Marie  11)  '^^. 
These  fables,  I  believe,  can  be  reckoned  as  dependent  on 
Marie   de   France   with   as    much    certainty    as    those 
already  noted  by  M.  Meyer  and  Herlet. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  fables  treated  in  this  sec- 
tion '^^,  attention  has  frequently  been  called  to  the  fact 
that  if  certain  fables  of  Bozon,  in  part  at  least,  do  not 
show  a   close   resemblance  with   Marie,    they   possess. 


75.  Cf.  Introduction,  p. 

76.  Cf.  page  17. 

77.  Cf .  pag-e  47. 

78.  Cf .  pag-e  50. 

79.  Cf.  pag-e  17. 


62 


however,  certain  motifs  which  prove  that  they  belong"  to 
the  Ang"lo-Latin  Romulus  tradition,  as  differentiated 
from  the  Rom.  Vulgaris  tradition.  It  would  at  first 
glance  seem  probable,  then,  that  Bozon  might  have  had 
recourse  for  some  of  his  fables  to  collections  outside  of 
Marie  which  belonged  to  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus 
tradition;  such  as,  the  Rom.  Treverensis,  the  Rom. 
Roberti,  or  even  perhaps,  the  Rom.  Nilantii. 

A  comparison  of  the  fables  of  Bozon  with  the 
corresponding  fables  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis,  however, 
will  show  that  Bozon  was  not  acquainted  with  this  col- 
lection, although  there  is  naturally  a  great  similarity 
between  it  and  certain  fables  of  Marie  de  France,  and 
also  those  of  Bozon.  The  following  examples  of  non- 
agreement  between  Bozon  and  the  Rom.  Treverensis 
have  already  been  noted : 

'  (1)  Bozon  42,  Wol/  and  Hedgehog  (Rom.  Trever- 
ensis 62):  In  the  Rom.  Treverensis  the  fable  is  more 
expanded  than  in  either  Marie  de  France  or  Bozon. 
Bozon  here  closely  follows  Marie. 

(2)  Bozon  47,  Monkey  and  Child  (Rom.  Trever- 
ensis 41):  The  Monkey  in  Bozon  and  in  Marie  has  but 
one  child  ;  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis  two  children  are 
mentioned. 

(3)  Bozon  75,  Rat  seeking  Wife  (Rom.  Treveren- 
sis 116):  Bozon  has  r^/,-  yi-axio.  miilez  ox  suriz ;  the  Rom. 
Treverensis  has  ?ntilus. 

(4)  Bozon  130,  Maji  and  Oxen  (Rom.  Treverensis 
63):  In  the  Rom.  Treverensis,  the  rtisticus  uses  a  goad 
on  the  oxen  and  loads  them  heavily,  so  that  they  com- 
plain. Bozon  and  Marie  agree  in  that  no  mention  is 
made  of  harsh  treatment  by  the  Man,  but  it  is  the  vile 
work  of  which  the  oxen  complain.  This  last  motif  is 
not  brought  out  in  the  Rom.  Roberti. 

In  addition  to  the  above  examples  other  suggestions 
might  be  made  which  go  to  prove  the  improbability  of 
Bozon's  acquaintance  with  a  Rom.  Treverensis  manu- 
script.    For  example: 

(1)  As  most  manuscripts  were  both  rare  and  ex- 
pensive in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  as  Bozon  himself  was 

63 


but  a  poor  Franciscan  monk,  it  is  probable  that  he  pos- 
sessed only  a  few  works  of  his  own.  Since  he  evidently 
made  frequent  use  of  a  French  fable  collection  in  his 
sermons  (that  is,  the  collection  of  Marie  de  France),  it 
is  likely  that  lie  had  before  him  a  manuscript  volume 
containing-  various  French  works,  among  which  was  a 
fable  collection.  It  is  certain  also  that  he  was  acquaint- 
ed with  the  fables  of  Odo  of  Sherington,  both  in  his 
reg-ular  collection  and  in  his  Pai'abolae^  where  they  occur 
sporadically.  These  two  works  of  Odo  were  probably 
contained  in  separate  manuscripts,  including-  a  variety 
of  Latin  treatises  ^^ .  As  Bozon  does  not  frequently 
take  his  fables  from  any  other  Latin  author,  it  is  proba- 
ble that  no  other  manuscript  containing  a  Latin  fable 
collection  was  known  to  him. 

(2)  Just  as  Alfred  translated  the  Anglo-Latin 
Romulus  in  English  for  the  la}^  folk,  so  Marie  de  France 
translated  Alfred's  collection  for  the  French-speaking 
people  of  England.  Bozon,  in  writing-  for  the  common 
folk,  would  naturally  prefer  fables  related  in  a  vulg-ar 
tongue  to  those  given  in  a  Latin  version. 

(3)  It  must  have  been  noticed  in  the  discussion  of 
the  fables  of  this  g-roup  ^  ^  that  no  fable  is  found  in  both 
Bozon  and  in  the  Rom.  Treverensis  that  does  not  also 
occur  in  Marie  de  France.  If  Bozon  had  drawn  at  ran- 
dom from  the  Rom.  Treverensis,  in  all  probability  he 
would  have  selected  a  few  fables  among  the  many  which 
are  not  in  Marie. 

(4)  The  greater  number  of  the  Rom.  Treverensis 
manuscripts   ^''^   are   at  the   present    time   preserved  in 


80.  Cf.  Hervieux's  descriptions  of  the  extant  manuscripts  of 

the  fables  of  Odo  of  Sherington,  Hervieux,  Vol.  IV, 
p.  47  sq. 

81.  Cf.  pagre  17. 

82.  The  extant  manuscripts  of  the  Rom.  Trevereniis,  as  far 
as  is  known,  are  preserved  only  in  the  following"  libraries  : 

(1)  Bruxelles,  Bibl.  Royale,  536. 

(2)  Copenhagen,  Kgl.  Bibliothek,  GKS.  4° ,  1978. 

(3)  Gottingen,  Universitatsbibl.,  Theol.  126. 

(4)  Gottingen,  Universitatsbibl.,  Theol.  140. 

(5)  Ivondon,  British  Museum,  Royal  15.  A.  VII. 

(6)  Mainz,  Stadtbibliothek,  Univ.  Mogunt.  27. 

(7)  Trier,  Stadtbibliothek,  215  num.  loc.  11. 

(8)  Trier,  Stadtbibliothek,  1107. 

(9)  Trier,  Stadtbibliothek,  1108. 

64 


German  libraries.  This  fact  would  tend  to  prove  that 
the  collection  in  question  was  orig-inally  written  in  that 
country,  since  the  majority  of  the  manuscripts  of  a 
gfiven  author  would  naturally  remain  in  the  country  in 
which  they  were  copied.  Again,  we  have  evidence  that 
the  Rom.  Treverensis  was  known  in  Germany  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  for  we  still  have  the  translation 
made  there  by  Gerhard  von  Minden  in  1270  A.  D.  The 
Rom.  Treverensis  in  the  British  Museum,  the  only 
manuscript  now  in  Eng-land,  is  both  late  and  very  in- 
complete ^^.  It  is  not  probable,  therefore,  that  Bozon 
was  acquainted  with  a  work  which  seems  to  have  been 
unknown  in  Eng-land  during-  the  Middle  Ages  ^*. 

As  for  the  Rom.  Nilantii,  a  few  examples  will  suf- 
fice to  show  its  non-agreement  with  Bozon: 

(1)  Bozon  91,  Sun  seeking  Wife  (Rom.  Nilantii, 
18)  ^^.  The  fable  in  the  Rom.  Nilantii  resembles  the 
version  in  the  Rom.  Vulgaris  as  differentiated  from  that 
in  Marie  de  France  and  in  Bozon. 

(2)  Bozon  94,  Man  and  Trees  (Rom.  Nilantii  II, 
16)  ^^     In  the  Rom.  Nilantii  the  fable  ends: 

Quercus  ad  Fraximim^  etc.  (as  also  throughout  the 
whole  Rom.  Vulgaris  tradition).  Bozon  and  Marie  de 
Prance  have  nothing  like  this. 

(3)  Bozon  131,  Lion  tmd  Companions  (Rom.  Ni- 
lantii I,  6)  ^^'.  In  the  Rom.  Nilantii  the  Lion  divides 
the  booty  into  four  parts;  in  Bozon  and  in  Marie  de 
Prance  but  three  divisions  are  made. 

(4)  Bozon  makes  use  of  several  fables  that  are  not 
found  in  the  Rom.  Nilantii  ^^. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Bozon,  for  a  part  of  his 
fables,   is   dependent   on   Marie  de    Pi«ance.     But   how 


83.  Cf.  catalog-ue  of  Romances  in  the  Department  of  manu- 

scripts in  the  British  Museum,  Vol.  II,  p.  286  ;   H.  L<. 
D.  Ward,  lyondon,  1893. 

84.  For  this  sug-gestion  I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  G.  C.  Keidel,  of 

the  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

85.  Cf .  page  42. 

86.  Cf.  page  45. 

87.  Cf.  page  50. 

88.  See  table  of  parallel  versions,  p.  15. 


65 


close  is  this  dependence?  Is  there  any  evidence  that 
Bozon  copied  directly  from  the  Marie  text?  M.  Meyer 
is  conservative  in  this  matter  and  prefers  to  posit  an 
intermediary  text  ^^,  either  Kng-lish  or  French,  between 
Bozon  and  Marie.  Herlet,  on  the  other  hand,  believes 
that  there  is  a  closer  relation  ^^  than  this  second  remove 
between  the  two  authors. 

On  comparing-  the  fables  of  Bozon  with  those  of 
Marie  de  France,  I  have  been  frequently  impressed  with 
the  close  resemblance  that  exists  among-  the  words  and 
phrases  of  the  two  authors  thus  compared  for  certain 
fables.  The  following-  examples  will  show  this  resem- 
blance: 

(1)     Bozon  17,    Owl  and  Hawk  (Marie  79)  ^^r  Be- 
sides the  g-eneral   motifs  which  are  common  to  Bozon 
and  to  Marie  de  France,  there  is  a  striking-  resemblance 
between  the  two  versions  in  the  following  phrases: 
Compare  Bozon: 

Tan  que  le  ostur  voleit  qere  lur  vitmde^ 
revynt  et  trova  sofi  ny  ordefnent  soilli^ 
and  Marie  de  France: 

Puis  lur  ala  qiierra  viunde 


Mes  quant  a  els  fu  repairiez 
Ksteit  5/5  niz  orz  e  suillez, 

Bozon,  moreover,   for  this  fable  has  made  use  of  the 

moral  in  Marie. 

(2)     Bozon  42,   Wolf  and  Hedgehog  (Marie  71)  ^'^\ 

Bozon  and   Marie  de  France   begin  their  fable  in  the 

same  manner: 
Bozon: 

Lc  Ion  i)rist  un  agneile  e  fui  sui 
des  chiens  et  des  bastons,  e  prist  son 
congee  del  hericeoun  d'  eschaper  au  bo  is; 

and  Marie: 

Un  aignel  -prist  li  lous  un  jour^ 


Li  chien  li  vunt  apres  huant, 
K  il  s'  en  vet  al  bois  fuiant. 

(vv.  9-12.) 


89.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  p.  XXII.      For  conveience  sake  I 

would  sugg-est  that  this  intermediary  text  posited  by 
M.  Meyer  be  called  the  Ysopet  d'  Angleterre. 

90.  Cf.  Herlet,  op.  cit.  p.  51. 

91.  Cf.  pag-e  17. 

92.  Cf.  pag-e  29. 

66 


Compare  ag-ain  Bozon  : 

Au  beisere  le  hericeon  lui  erda  al  menton^ 
and  Marie : 

Li  loiis  baisa  le  herifun^ 

E  il  5'  aert  a  sun  mentun, 

(vv.  25-26.) 
(3)     Bozon  50,  Cat  as  Blsho:p  (Marie  101)  ^^ 
Bozon : 

Le  chat  sit  sur  le  fourure  e  vy nt 

la  sorice  champestre     .... 
Marie  de  France : 

Uns  chaz  seeit  desur  un  fur^ 


Vit  le  mulet  e  la  suriz. 

(vv.  1-3.) 
Here,  as  in  the  preceding-  example  (2)  it  will  be  noticed 
that  Bozon's  ag-reement  with  Marie  is  especially  strik- 
ing in  the  beginning-  of  the  fables. 

(4)  Bozon  55,  Sheet  cind  Wolf  before  Lion  (Marie 
4)  «*.     Bozon: 

Quant  le  lou  ad  pris  ceo  qe  lui  flest^ 

lors  vynt  le  gopil  tot  -prest^ 

e  le  corf  ne  veut  mye  tart^ 

ne  le  mastyn  de  prendre  sa  fart, 
Marie  de  France : 

Li  chiens  i  vient,  sa  part  en  porte 

K  li  escufles  d'  altre  fart 

K  puis  li  lous,  trop  li  est  tart. 

(vv.  28-30.) 
Notice  that,  just  as  in  (2)  and  (3),  we  have  examples  of 
Bozon  showing-  close  agreement  with  Marie  at  the  be- 
ginnings of  his  fables,  so  here  at  the  end  of  the  fable  it 
would  seem  that  he  was  imitating  her  version. 

(5)  Bozon  91,  Sun  Seeking  Wife  (Marie  6)  ^^: 
Bozon : 

Le  autres  alerent  a  Destinee     .     .     . 


93.  Cf.  page  32. 

94.  Cf.  pag-e34. 

95.  Cf .  page  42. 


67 


Marie  de  France : 

Les  creatures  s'  asemblerent ; 

A  la  destinee  en  alerent. 

(vv.  5-6.) 
Bozon,  as  well  as  Marie,  makes  frequent  use  of  the  word 
destinee  in  exactly  the  same  circumstances  ^^. 

(6)     Bozon  130,  Man  and  Oxen  (Marie  84)  ^^ 
Compare  Bozon : 

Malment  alowez  le  i>ayn  e  la  cerveyse 

ge  avez  i>ar  nostre  travailles^  quant  de 

tiel  travaille  nous  avez  encombree* 
and  Marie  de  France  : 

Li  buef  par  tengun  V  assaillirent, 

Si  repruverent  al  vilein. 

La  bonne  cerveise  e  le  pein^ 

Que  -par  lur  travail  ot  eti; 

Mes  malement  lur  a  rendu : 

Qu'  a  g-rant  hunte  les  demena. 

(vv.  4-9.) 
In  this  last  example,  M.  Meyer  concedes  ^^  that  the 
resemblance  between  Bozon  and  Marie  in  strong-  enough 
to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  he  has  taken  this  fable 
from  her  collection.  But  if  the  facts  would  seem  to 
justify  us  in  holding  that  Bozon,  for  one  fable,  is 
directly  dependent  on  Marie,  why  cannot  the  same  be 
said  for  those  fables  also  whose  resemblence  to  Marie  is 
almost  as  striking-  as  that  for  the  fable  just  noted  ? 

If  one  will  take  into  consideration  the  character  as 
well  as  the  aim  of  Bozon's  fables,  the  freedom  with 
which  he  treats  his  original  material  will  be  better 
understood.  The  fable  to  him  was  only  a  means  to  an 
end  so  he  often  abridged  it.  In  many  cases,  also  he 
may  have  relied  on  his  memory,  and  in  this  way  a  con- 
fusion with  a  different  version,  or  with  a  different  fable, 
could  arise  ^^. 


96.  Cf.  fable  of  Peacock  and  Juno,  par.  18. 

97.  Cf.  pagre49. 

98.  Cf.  C.  M.  de  Bozon,  p.  XIX. 

99.  Cf .  fable  of  Sheep  and  Wolf  before  I^ion,  p.  34. 


68 


It  is'  interesting-  to  note  that  Bozon,  if  he  has 
drawn  directly  from  Marie  de  France  for  his  fables, 
must  have  had  recourse  to  a  no  very  incomplete  manu- 
script. Of  the  extant  manuscripts  of  Marie  whose 
dates  are  anterior  to  the  fifteenth  century,  there  are  five 
only  which  contain  all  of  those  fables  in  Bozon  which 
have  been  assigned  by  me  as  dependent  on  Marie ; 
they  are  i««: 

(1)  London,  British  Museum,  Harley  978.  4°, 
162  Bl. 

(2)  Oxford,  Bodleian  Library,  Coll.  Douce  132. 

(3)  Paris,  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  1593,  4°,  218  Bl. 

(4)  Paris,  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  2168,  4°,  241,  Bl. 

(5)  Paris,  Bibliotheque  Arsenal,  3142,Tol.,  321,  Bl. 
Since  Bozon  wrote  his  fables  in  England,  it  is  not 

likely  that  he  had  access  to  those  manuscripts  now  in 
Prance,  for  we  have  no  record  that  the  French  manuscript 
were  ever  in  England  and,  as  a  general  rule,  manuscripts 
remain  in  the  country  where  they  were  written.  The 
Harley  and  Oxford  manuscripts,  then,  alone  remain  of 
the  extant  manuscripts  of  Marie  de  France  from  which 
Bozon  could  have  drawn  his  fables.  According  to  the 
scheme  of  the  relations  of  the  Marie  manuscripts 
worked  out  by  Warnke  ^  ^  \  the  manuscripts  A  D  belong 
to  Group  a.  Hence,  Bozon  must  have  been  acquainted 
with  one  of  the  following  manuscripts:  a\  a^,  A  or  D; 
at  least,  he  must  have  known  a  manuscript  closely 
related  to  these  manuscripts. 

I  trust  I  am  not  over-confident  in  holding  that  my 
investigation  of  this  subject  shows  that  Bozon  is  prob- 
ably indebted  to  Marie  de  France  for  fifteen  of  his 
fables.  These  constitute  nearly  two-fifths  (38  per  cent.) 
of  the  whole  number  of  fables  proper  contained  in  the 
Contes.  But  if  only  those  fables  are  taken  into  account 
which  are  most  commonly  found  in  the  principal  fable 


100.  Cf .  Warnke,  Die  Fabeln  der  Marie  de  France, 

pp.  Ill— XII. 

101.  Cf.  ibid,  p.  XLIII. 


69 


collections  ^^^,  it  is  possible  to  reduce  the  number  of 
fables  proper  in  the  Conies  to  thirty-two.  According 
to  this  reckoning  Bozon  has  drawn  nearly  one-half  of 
his  fables  from  Marie  de  France,  or,  at  least,  from  a 
collection  closely  related  to  hers  and  which  I  have 
already  referred  to  as  the  Ysopet  d'  Angleterre  ^  ^  ^ .  This 
differentiation  of  the  regular  ^Esopic  fables  in  Bozon 
from  those  which  belong  to  a  more  general  category  is 
just,  and  it  leaves  us  at  liberty  to  conclude  that  for  the 
seven  or  eight  fables,  not  covered  by  this  computation, 
Bozon  must  have  drawn  either  on  oral  tradition  or  on 
sundry  works  that  contain  merely  stray  fables. 


102.  Such  as  the  Rom.  Vulgaris,   Marie  de  France,  Odo  of 

Sherington,  etc. 

103,  Cf .  page  66,  note  89. 


70 


CONCLUSION. 


The  results  that  have  been  obtained  by  this  study 
of  the  fables  of  Bozon  are  as  follows : 

(1)  Bozon  probably  had  access  to  a  manuscript 
containing-  the  fables  of  Marie  de  France,  and  it  is  from 
her  work  that  he  has  drawn  more  fables  than  from  any 
other  single  source ; 

(2)  He  did  not  know  either  the  Rom.  Nilantii,  the 
the  Rom.  Treverensis  or  the  Rom.  Roberti,  all  of  which 
collections  are  closely  related  to  that  of  Marie ; 

(3)  In  his  sermons  Bozon  made  use  of  Odo  of 
Shering-ton's  fables,  just  as  the  majority  of  the 
preachers  of  his  time  drew  on  these  sources  ; 

(4)  He  seems  to  have  been  inspired,  in  part, 
thoug-h  perhaps  indirecty,  for  two  fables  from  the  Rom. 
Vulg-aris  ^; 

(5)  Oral  tradition  has  frequently  been  drawn 
upon  by  Bozon,  as  it  had  been  by  Alfred  of  Bng-land 
and  Odo  of  Sherington; 

(6)  A  group  of  fables  that  would  seem  to  have 
had  their  origin  in  the  cloisters,  as  well  as  certain 
fables  written  in  imitation  of  the  chief  episodes  in  the 
Rom.  de  Renart^  must  also  have  been  familiar  to  our 
author  ''^; 

(7)  Broadly  speaking  Bozon  has  followed,  in  g"en- 
eral,  the  Anglo-Latin  Romulus  tradition,  as  distinct 
from  the  Romulus  Vulg-aris  tradition.  His  fables  bear 
no  resemblance  to  the  Avianus  type. 

(8)  Bozon,   it  would   seem,  was    acquainted  with 


1.  Fables  of  Peacock  and  Destiny  (par.   18)  and  Cock  and 

Jewel  (par.  26). 

2.  Note  particularly  fables  in  par.  46,  145. 


71 


such  works  as  the  Exempla  of  Jacques  de  Vitry  the 
Vitae  Patrum^  a  work  closely  resembling-  the  De  Pro- 
prietatibus  Rerum  of  Bartholomew  the  Knglishman,  or 
Glanville,  and  the  Disciflina  Clericalis.  From  the 
latter  he  has  drawn,  in  part,  one  fable  ^. 

It  is  not  uncommon  for  a  fabulist  to  draw  his  fables 
from  different  sources.  Hervieux  *  in  treating-  the  Rom. 
Bernensis^  Prhnus^  states  that  it  is  a  Latin  derivative, 
in  prose,  whose  principal  source  is  the  Primative  Rom- 
ulus, but  at  the  same  time  it  presents  evident  afi&nities 
with  the  Latin  derivative  of  the  Romulus  of  Marie 
(Rom.  Treverensis),  the  fables  of  Odo  of  Sherington 
and  the  Rom.  of  Munich.  According  to  Herlet  ^,  John 
of  Sheppey  was  influenced  by  the  Rom.  Vulgaris^  the 
Rom.  Treverensis^  Odo  of  Shering-ton  and  perhaps,  also, 
by  the  Ro7n.  Roherti.  This  dependence  on  different 
fable  collections  is  not  surprising  with  a  writer  such  as 
Bozon,  who  would  naturally  have  been  eager  to  g-ather 
fables  from  whatever  source  for  use  in  his  sermons. 

If  the  agreement  between  Bozon  and  the  fabulists 
whom  he  followed  is  often  only  partial  and  inaccurate, 
this  fact  should  not  lead  one  to  deny  altogether  his 
indebtedness  to  these  sources.  It  is  a  characteristic  of 
Bozon,  as  it  is  with  Odo,  who  he  mostly  resembles,  that 
he  does  not  follow  directly  and  intentionally  his  written 
sources.  We  have  seen  ®  that  one  of  his  chief  char- 
acteristics as  a  writer  of  fables  is  his  custom  of  chang- 
ing at  will  the  actors  in  a  g-iven  fable.  The  fable  to  him 
was  only  a  means  to  an  end,  therefore  he  often  abridged 
it.  Frequently,  also,  he  either  draws  his  material  from 
oral  tradition,  or  wrote  it  down  from  memory,  whereby 
changes  in  the  fable  would  likely  occur,  and  also  confu- 
sion in  motifs  would  arise. 

The  English  verses  attached  to  some  of  the  fables 
of  Bozon  seem  to  prove  that  these  particular  fables  go 
back  to  an  English  source,  but  we  have  not  enough 


3.  Fable  of  Fox  and  Sheep,  par.  128. 

4.  Cf.  Hervieux,  Vol.  I  (1st  ed.),  p.  694. 

5.  Cf.  Herlet,  op.  cit.,  p.  82. 

6.  Cf .  pag-e  34,  note. 


72 


evidence  from  these  examples  to  show  that  Bozon  knew 
an  English  fable  collection.  We  have  here  rather 
traces  of  the  Eng-lish  folk  tradition. 

The  French  rimes  that  occur  sporadically  through- 
out the  fables  of  Bozon  do  not  force  us  to  posit  an  inter- 
mediary French  text  between  Bozon  and  Marie  de 
France.     They  are  probably  original  with  our  author. 

Although  there  are  six  fables  '^  of  Bozon  whose 
source  I  have  not  been  able  to  discover  (nor  do  I  know 
of  any  parallel  versions  of  these  fables),  I  hestitate  to 
conclude  that  he  is  the  author  of  any  of  them.  Since 
several  of  his  fables  have  their  origin  in  oral  tradition, 
it  would  seem  better,  for  the  time  being,  at  least,  to 
attribute  these  strange  fables  to  oral  tradition. 

Finally,  we  must  consider  Bozon  as  an  honest 
preacher,  who,  for  the  moral  instruction  as  well  as  for 
the  amusement  of  his  hearers,  has  collected  a  number 
of  fables,  drawn  from  various  sources,  for  use  in  his 
sermons.  It  is  by  reason  of  the  varied  sources  of  his 
fables,  as  well  as  his  individuality  as  a  writer,  that  the 
fables  of  Bozon,  as  a  whole,  offer  certain  peculiar  char- 
acteristics. The  work  of  Bozon,  though,  properly 
speaking  not  a  collection  of  sermons,  had  no  doubt  a 
certain  vogue,  as  is  attested  by  the  Latin  translation  of 
the  contes  (in  part).  This  work  was  used  as  a  model  by 
preachers  of  the  order  to  which  Bozon  belonged  ;  there 
are  no  indications,  however,  that  Bozon's  fables  have 
inspired  any  later  writers  of  fables. 


7.     Fables  in  par.  10,  14,  53a,  56,  114  and  135. 


73 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

A.      ORIGINAL  TEXTS. 

1.  (ab.  425  B.  C.)     Vishnusarnian,  Pantschatantra, 

Trans,  by  Benfey,  Leipzig",  1859. 

2.  (ab.    25   A.    D.)       Phaedrus    Aug-usti    Liberatus, 

Fahiilae  Aesofiae. 
a.  Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1894. 
h.  Ed.  by  Havet,  Paris,  1895. 

3.  (ab.    100   A.    D.)     Valerius   Babrius,    Mythiamhoi 

Aisopeioi. 
Ed.  by  Crusius,  Leipzig,  1897. 

4.  (ab.  380  A.  D.)     Flavius  Avianus,  Fahulae. 

Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1894. 

5.  (ab.  625  A.  D.)     Pseudo-Fredegarius,    Chroniaim. 

Ed.  by  Duchesne,  Liitetiae  Parisioriim^  1639. 

6.  (ab.  950  A.  D.)      Calila  et  Dhnna. 

Trans,  by  Keith-Falconer,  Cambridge,  1888. 

7.  (ab.  950  A.  D.)     Romulus  Vulgaris, 

Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1894. 

8.  (ab.950A.  D.)    Fromundus  Tegernseensis,  ^25/^r/« 

Fuiidationis   Monasterii  Tegernseensis. 
(V.  Hervieux,  Vol.  HI,  p.  507.) 

9.  (ab.  1000  A.  D.)     Aimoinus  Floriacensis,  Historia 

Francorum. 
Ed.  by  Duchesne,  Lutetiae  Parisioruni^  1641. 

10.  (ab.  1050  A.  D.)     Romulus  Nilantii. 

Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1894. 

11.  (ab.  1125  A.  D.)     Baldo,  Alter  Aesopus. 

Ed.  by  Du  Meril,  Paris,  1854. 

12.  (ab.  1148  A.  D.)     Nivardus  Magister,  Tsengrimus, 

Ed.  by  Voigt,  Halle,  1884. 

74 


13.  (ab.  1175  A.  D.)     Romulus  Trevere^isis  ^. 

Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1894. 

14.  (ab.  1175  A.  D.)     Marie  de  France,  Esofe. 

a.  Ed.  by  Roquefort,  Paris,  1832. 
h.  Ed.  by  Warnke,  Halle,  1898. 

15.  (ab.  1190  A.  D.)     Petrus  Alfonsus,  Disciflina 

Clericalis. 
Ed.  by  Labouderie,  Paris,  1824. 

16.  (ab.  1200  A.  D.)     Roman  de  Renart, 

Ed.  by  Martin,  Strasbourg-  et  Paris,  1882,  1887. 

17.  (ab.  1200  A.  D.)     Alexander  Nequam,  De  Naturis 

Rerum. 
Ed.  by  Wright,  London,  1863. 

18.  (ab.  1215  A.  D.)     Alexander  Nequam,  iV<9Z/«5 

Aesofus, 

a.  Ed.  by  Du  Meril,  Paris,  1854. 

b.  Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884. 

19.  (ab.  1220  A.  D.)    Chastoiement  (T  un  Pbre  a  son  Fils. 

a.  Ed.  by  Labouderie,  Paris,  1824. 
h.  Ed.  by  Meon,  Paris,  1808. 

20.  (ab.  1225  A.  D.)     Remhart  Fuchs. 

Ed.  by  Reissenberger,  Halle,  1886. 

21.  (ab.  1250  A.  D.)    Vincentius  Bellovacensis,  Specu- 

limi  Historiale, 
Ed.  in  part  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1894. 

22.  (ab.  1250  A.  D.)     Odo  de  Ceringtonia,  Paraholae, 

Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1896. 

23.  (ab.  1250  A.  D.)     Odo  de  Cering-tonia,  Fahulae, 

Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1896. 

24.  (ab.  1250  A.  D.)     Pseudo-St.  Cyrillus,  Speculum 

Safientiae. 
^      Ed.  by  Grasse,  Tubingen,  1880. 

25.  (ab.  1250  A.  D.)     Exempla  Hamiltoniana, 

Ed.  by  Tobler,  Halle,  1889. 


Also  known  as  the  ly.  B.  G.  collection  (so  termed  by  Mall), 
and  as  the  D^riv^  CompLet  du  Romulus  Anglo-Latin 
(Hervieux). 

75 


26.  (ab.  1250  A.  D.)      Vitae  Patrum, 

Ed.  by  Rosweydus,  Antwerp,  1628. 

27.  (ab.  1250  A.   D.)      Bartholomaeus   Anglicus,    Be 

Prof7'ietatibus  Rerum, 
a,  Ed.,  Strassburg",  1505  {no7i  vidimus), 
h.  Trans,  by  Batman,  London,  1582. 

28.  (ab.  1250  A.  D.)     Pseudo-Gualterus  Anglicus, 

Fahulae  ^. 
Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1894. 

29.  (ab.  1250  A.  D.)     Fabliaux,. 

a.  Ed.  by  Le  Grand  d'  Aussy,  Paris,  1779. 
h.  Ed.  by  Montaiglon  et  Raynaud,  Paris, 
1872-1890. 

30.  (ab.  1260  A.  D.)     Vincentius  Bellovacensis,  ^^^c«- 

lum  Doctrinale. 
Ed.   by  Koberger,   Nurembergk,    1486.      ^Non 
vidimus. ) 

31.  (ab.  1265  A.  D.)     Johannes  de  Capua,  Directorium 

Vitae  Humanae. 
Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1899. 

32.  (1270  A.  D.)     Gerhard  von  Minden,  Aeso^us. 

Ed.  by  Leitzmann,  Halle,  1898. 

33.  (ab.    1275   A.    D.)     Romulus  Bernensis  Primus  *. 

Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1894. 

34.  (ab.  1300  A.  D.)     Pseudo-Odo  de  Ceringtonia, 

Fahulae  *. 
Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1896. 

35.  (ab.  1320  A.  D.)     Nicole  Bozon,   Contes  Moralises. 

Ed.  by  Smith  et  Meyer,  Paris,  1889. 

36.  (ab.  1322  A.  D.)     Promi>tuarium  Fxemplorum 

Parisiense. 
Ed.  by  Warnke,  Halle,  1898. 

37.  (ab.  1325  A.  D.)     Romulus  Roberti. 

a.  Ed.  by  Robert,  Paris,  1825. 

b.  Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1894. 


2.  Also  called  the  Appendix  Altera  Gualteri  Anglici  Fabul- 

aruni  by  Hervieux  in  his  editions. 

3.  Also  known  as  the  Romulus  Mixte  de  Bertie. 

4.  Also  known  as  the  Odonis  de  Ceritona  Addita^  Collectio 

Prima. 


76 


38.  (ab,  1325  A.  D.)     Tsopet  I  de  Paris. 

Ed.  by  Robert,  Paris,  1825. 

39.  (ab.  1325  A.  D.)     Geste  des  Chitrois. 

Ed.  by  Raynaud  {^non  vidimus), 

40.  (ab.  1350  A.  D.)    Johannes  de  Scheppeya,  Fahulae, 

Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1896. 

41.  (ab.  1350  A.  D.)     Nicolaus  Perg-amenus,  Dyalogus 

Creatiirarum. 
Ed.  by  Grasse,  Tubingen,  1880. 

42.  (ab.  1350  A.  D.)     Elinandus  et  Petrus  Berchorius, 

Gesta  JRomanorufn. 
Ed.  by  Oesterley,  Berlin,  1872. 

43.  (ab.  1350  A.  D.).     Romulus  Vratlaviensis  ^. 

Cf.    Herlet,    Asopische  Pabel   im   Mittelalter, 
p.  93,  sq.,  Bamberg-,  1892. 

44.  (ab.  1350  A.  D.)     English  Gesta  Roinanorum, 

Ed.  by  Herrtage,  London,  1879. 

45.  (ab.  1375  A.  D.)     Romulus  Harleianus," 

Ed.  by  Smith  et  Meyer,  Paris,  1889. 

46.  (ab.  1390  A.  D.)     Johannes  Bromiardus,   Summa 

Praedicantium . 
Ed.  Antverpiae,  1614.  ' 

47.  (ab.  1400  A.  D.)     Fahulae  Aesopicae. 

Ed.  by  Halm,  Leipzig-,  1881. 

48.  (ab.  1450  A.  D.)     Romulus  Monacensis, 

Ed.  by  Hervieux,  Paris,  1884,  1894. 

49.  (ab.  1450  A.  D. )    Jean  Mielot,  Disciplina  de  Clergie, 

Ed,  by  Labouderie,  Paris,  1824. 

50.  (1484  A.  D.)     William  Caxton,  Esope. 

Ed.  by  Jacobs,  London,  1889. 

51.  (ab.  1625  A.  D.)     Hans  Wilhelm  Kirchhof, 

Wendunmuth. 
Ed.  by  Oesterley,  Stuttgart,  1869. 


5.     The  Breslau  manuscript. 


77 


B.      E^DITIONS   AND   STUDIES. 

1.  (1483)     Vincentius  Bellovacensis,    Speculnm  His- 

toriale^  Nuremberg-e,  Antonius  Koburg-er,  1483 
(non  vidimus).  (Bib.  Ars.  1480  bio.  B.  Vol.  I, 
Liber  IV,  c.  2-8,  on  fos.  47  vo.,  col.  1  to  48  vo. 
col  1). 

2.  (1468)     Vincentius  Bellovacensis,  Sfeculum  Doc- 

trinale^  Nurembergk,  Anthonius  Kobergfer,  1486 
(non  vidimus).  (Bib.  Ars.  1480  bis.  B.  Vol.  V, 
Liber  IV,  c.  114-123,  on  fos.  65  ro,  col.  1  to  66 
ro,  col.  1). 

3.  (1505)     Bartholomaeus  de  Glanvilla  Z/3^r  <^^  /V^- 

i)rietatihus  Reriim^  etc.  Argentine,  1505  {non 
vidimus). 

4.  (1582)     Batman  uffon  Bartholomew  his  Booke  de 

Profrietatibiis  Reriim^  London,  1582. 

5.  (1586)     Robert  Holkot,  Lihriim  Sapientiae  Regis 

Salo7noniSw  Basel,  1586  {no7i  vidimus). 

6.  (1599)     Caesarius  Heisterbacensis,  Illustrium  Mir- 

aculorum  et  Historiarum  Memorabilium  Lib. 
XII.  Coloniae  Agrippinae  in  OlB&cina  Birck- 
mannica,  sumptibus  Arnoldi  Mylij,  Anno 
MDXCIX. 

7.  (1614)     Joannes  Bromiardus,  Summa  Praedicatium 

Omnibus  Dominici  Gregis  Pastoribtis  .... 
longd  utilissima  ac  pernecessaria.  Antverpia  : 
ex  oJB&cino  Hieronymi  Verdussi,  1614. 

8.  (1628)      Vitae  Patrum:  De  Vita  et  Verbis  Seniorum 

sive  Historiae  Eremiticae  Libri  X;  opera  et 
studio  Heriberti  Ros-weydi.     Antverpia. 

9.  (1808)     Fabliaux  et  Contes  des  Poetes  Frangais  des 

XI,  XII,  XIII,  XIV,  et  XV^  Siecles,  Barbazan 
et  Meon,  Paris,  1808. 
10.  (1824)  [J.  Labouderie],  Disciflina  Clericalis, 
Auctore  Petro  Alphonsi:  Discipline  de  Clergie, 
Traduction  de  V  ouvrage  de  Pierre  Alphonse  : 
Le  Chastoiement  ^'  U7i  Pere  a  son  Fils,  Paris, 
1824. 


11.  (1825)     A.    C.    M.    Robert,    Fables    Inedites    des 

XII  %  XIII «  et  XIV «  Siecles  et  Fables  de  La 
Fontaine.     2  vols.     Paris,  1825. 

12.  (1832)     B.    de    Roquefort,    Poisies    de    Marie    de 

France.  2  vols.  Paris,  1832.  [Title-page 
edition.] 

13.  (1841-1843)     Thomas  Wright  and  James  Orchard 

Halliwell,  Reliquiae  Antiguae,  2  vols.  Lon- 
don, 1841-1843. 

14.  (1842)     Thomas    Wright,    A    Selection   of  Latin 

Stories  from  Manuscripts  of  the  Thirteenth  and 
Fourteenth  Centuries,  London,  1842.  (Percy 
Society,  Vol.  VIII). 

15.  (1852)     C.  Hippeau,   Le  Bestiaire  Divin  de   Guil- 

lamne^  Clerc  de  Normandie^  Caen,  1852. 

16.  (1854)     Kdelstand  Du  Meril,   Poesies   Inedites   du 

Moyen  Ag-e^  precddees  d''  une  Histoire  de  la  Fable 
Esopique.     Paris,  1854. 

17.  (1863)     Alexandri    Neckam    De    Naturis    Rerufu 

Lihri  Duo^  edited  by  Thomas  Wright.  London, 
1863. 

18.  (1869)      Wendunmuth  von  Hans  Wilhelm  Kirchhof 

herausgegeben  von  Hermann  Osterley.  5  vols. 
Tiibingen,  1869.  {Bibliothek  des  Litterarischen 
Vereins  in  Stuttgart,  XCV-IC). 

19.  (1872)     Hermann    Oesterley,    Gesta    Romanorum. 

Berlin,  1872. 

20.  (1872-1890)     Anatole  de  Montaiglon,  Recueil  Ghi- 

iral  et  Comflet  des  Fabliaux  des  XIP  et  XIV^ 
Siecles  hnfrimis  ou  InSdits.  6  vols.  Paris, 
1872-1890. 

21.  (1877)     A.   Lecoy  de   la   Marche,    Anecdotes  His- 

toriques,  L^gendes  et  Apologues  tirds  du  Recueil 
Inidit  d''  ^tienne  de  Bourbon,  publics  pour  la 
Societe  de  1'  Histoire  de  France.     Paris,  1877. 

22.  (1878)     Kleinere  Lateinische  Denkmdler  der  Thier- 

sage  aus  dem  Zwolften  bis  Vierzehnten  fahr- 
hundert,  herausgegeben  von  Enrst  Voigt, 
Strassburg:  Karl  J.  Triibner,  1878. 

79 


23.  (1879)     Sidney  J.  H.  Herrtage,  The  Early  English 

Versiofis  of  the  Gesta  Romanoruin.  London, 
1879.  (Early  English  Text  Society,  Extra 
Series  No.  XXXIII. 

24.  (1880)     Die  Beiden   Altesten   Lateinischen    Fahel- 

bilcher  des  Mittelalters :  Des  Bischofs  Cyrillus 
Speculum  SapienUae  und  des  Nicolaus  Perga- 
menus  Dialogus  Creaturarum^  herausgegeben 
von  Dr.  J.  G.  Th.  Grasse,  Tiibingen.  {Biblio- 
thek  des  Litterarischen  Vereifis  in  Stuttgart^ 
CXLVIII). 

25.  (1881)     Fahulae  Aesoficae   Collectae^   recog-nitione 

Caroli  Halmii.     Lipsiae,  1881. 

26.  (1882)     Le  Roma7i  de  Renart^  public  par  Ernest 

Martin.     3  vols.      Strasbourg-Paris,  1882-1887. 

27.  (1883)     W.    Gunion    Rutherford,    Babrius,    edited 

with  Introductory^  Dissertations^  Critical  Notes^ 
Commentary^  and  Lexicon,     London,  1883. 

28.  (1884)     Ysengriinus^    herausgegeben    und    erklart 

von  Ernst  Voigt.     Halle,  1884. 

29.  (1884)     Oeuvres   de  J,    de   la   Fontaine^    R^gnier, 

Paris,  1884  (Les  Grands  Ecrivains  de  la  Prance, 
La  Fontaine,  Vol.  II). 

30.  (1884-1899)     Leopold     Hervieux,     Les    Fabulistes 

Latins  defuis  le  sitcle  d^  Auguste  jusqu^  a  la  Fin 
du  Moyen  Age.     5  vols.     Paris,  1893-1899. 

31.  (1887)     Observations    sur    le    Roman    de    Renart^ 

Martin.     Strasbourg,  1887. 

32.  (1886)     E.   Mall,    Zur    Geschichte   der  Mittelalter- 

lichen  Fabellitteratur  und  insbesondere  des  Esope 
der  Marie  de  France.  In  Zeitschrift  fiir  Roman- 
ische  Philogie^  herausgegeben  von  Dr.  Gustav 
Grober.  Halle,  1886.  (See  Vol.  IX  (1885), 
pp.  161-203. 

33.  (1885)     I.    G.    N.    Keith-Falconer,    Kalilah    and 

Difnnah  or  the  Fables  of  Bidpai^  with  an  Eng- 
lish Translation  of  the  Later  Syriac  Version  of 
the  Same^  and  Notes.     Cambridge,  1885. 


80 


34.  (1886)     Reinhart  Fiichs,  herausg-eg-eben  von  Karl 

Reissenberg-er.  Halle,  1886.  (^Altdeutsche  Text- 
hihliothek^  herausg-eg-eben  von  H.  Paul,  No.  7). 

35.  (1889)     A.   Tobler,   Lateinische  Beisfielsammlung 

mil  Bildern.  In  Zeitschrift  fur  Ro^nanische 
Philologie,  herausg-eg-eben  von  Dr.  Gustav 
Grober.  Halle,  1889.  See  Vol.  XII  (1888), 
pp.  57-88. 

36.  (1889)      7'he  Fables  of  ^soi>   as  first  printed  by 

William  Caxton  in  1484^  with  those  of  Avian^ 
Alfonso  and  Poggio^  Joseph  Jacobs.  2  vols. 
London,  1889. 

37.  (1890)     Thomas  Frederick  Crane,  The  Exempla  or 

Illustrative  Stories  from  the  Sermones  Vulgares 
of  facques  de  Vitry.  London,  1890.  {Publica- 
tions of  the  Folk-Lore  Society^  XXVI. 

38.  (1892)     Dr.  Bruno  Herlet,  Beitrdge  ztir  Geschichte 

der  dsoI>ischen  Fabel  im  Mittelalter,  Bamberg-, 
1892. 

39.  (1892)     Leopold  Sudre,  Les  Sources  du  Roman  de 

Renart.     Paris,  1892. 

40.  (1893)     Joseph   Bedier,   Les  Fabliaux:    Etudes  de 

Litterature  Pofulaire  et  ^'  Histoire  Liitirature 
du  Moyen  Age.     Paris,  1893. 

41.  (1895)     Zo^Q^^h  Zdicoh^^  The  Most  Delectable  History 

of  Reynard  the  Fox.  London  and  New  York, 
1895. 

42.  (1895)     Phaedri  Augusti  Liberti  Fabulae  JEsofiae., 

Ludovicas  Havet.     Paris,  1895. 

43.  (1897)     Babrii  Fabulae  ^sopeae,    Otto    Crusius. 

Lipsiae,  1897.  {Bibliotheca  Scriptorum  Grae- 
corum  et  Romanorum  Teubneriana) . 

44.  (1898)     Die  Fabeln  der  Marie  de  France^  heraus- 

g-egfeben  von  Karl  Warnke.     Halle,  1898. 

45.  (1898)     Die  Fabeln  Gerhards  von  Minden  im  Mit- 

telniederdeutscher  Sprache^  herausg-eg-eben  von 
Albert  Leitzmann.     Halle,  1898. 


81 


46.  (1900)     Die  Qiiellen  des  Esofe  der  Marie  de  France, 

von  Karl  Warnke  in  Coburg.  See  pp.  161-284 
in  Forschungen  zur  Romajiischen  Philologie : 
Festgahe  fur  Hermann  Suchier  zuni  15  Mdrz, 
1900,     Halle,  1900. 

47.  (1902)     Wouter   Antonie  Van  der  Vet,  Het  Bien- 

boec  van  Thomas  van  Cantimj>re  en  zij'n  Ex- 
empelen.     Gravenhage,  1902. 

C      MANUSCRIPTS. 

1.  Cambridg-e,  University  Library,  Gg.  6.  28. 

2.  Cheltenham,  Phillipps  Library,  8336. 

3.  Lambeth,  Archiepiscopal  Library,  522. 

4.  London,  British  Museum,  Arundel  507. 

5.  London,   British  Museum,    Cotton   Domitianus 

A.  XI. 

6.  London,  British  Museum,  Cotton  Julius  A.  V. 

7.  London,  British  Museum,  Harley  209. 

8.  London,  British  Museum,  Harley  957. 

9.  London,  British  Museum,  Harley  1288. 

10.  London,  British  Museum,  Harley  2253. 

11.  London,  British  Museum,  Royal  8.  K.  XVII. 

12.  London,  British  Museum,  Royal  20.  B.  XIV. 

13.  London,  Gray's  Inn  Library,  12. 

14.  Oxford,  Bodleian  Library,  Bodley  425. 

15.  Oxford,  Bodleian  Library,  Bodley  761. 

16.  Oxford,  Bodleian  Library,  Douce  210. 

17.  Oxford,    Bodleian   Library,    Rawlinson   Poetry 

241  (formerly  Miscellanea  473). 

18.  Oxford,  Bodleian  Library,  Selden  su^pra  74. 

D.      BIOGRAPHICAL   NOTICES. 

1.  (1834)     De    la    Rue,    Essais    Historiques    sur    les 

Bardes,  les  Jongleurs  ei  les  Trouveres,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  297-300. 

2.  (1846)     Thomas    Wright,    Biografhia     Britanica 

Literaria,  London,  1846,  pp.  331-332. 


82 


3.  (1884)     Paul  Meyer,  in  Romania.YohXlll  (1884 j, 

pp.  497-541. 

4.  (1888)     Paul  Meyef,  Rapport  sur  les  Travaux   de 

la  SocUU  des  Anciens  Textes  Fran^ais  pendant 
V  Annee  1887,  pp.  49-50. 

5.  (1889)     Paul  Meyer,  in  Contes  Moralises  de  Nicole 

Bozon,  pp.  I-LXXIV. 

6.  (1890)     Gaston  Paris,  La  Littirature  Fran  false  au 

Moyen   Age,  pp.  119  (§81),  223  (§152). 

7.  (1890)     Thos.   P.   Crane,    Exejupla   of  Jaqiies   de 

Vitry,  pp.  CXI-CXIII. 

8.  (1890)     Maurice   Hewlett,   A    Mediaeval  Popular 

Preacher.  In  The  Nineteenth  Centiwy :  A 
Monthly  Review,  edited  by  James  Knowles, 
London.     See  Vol.  XXVIII  (1890),  pp.  470-477. 

9.  (1890)     Paul  Meyer,  Rapport  sur  les  Travaux  de  la 

Sociite  des  Anciens  Textes  Frangais  pendant  V 
Annie  1889,  pp.  51-54. 

10.  (1891)     William  Wells  Newell,  in   The  Jotirnal  of 

American  Folk-Lore,  Vol.  IV  (1891),  p.  91. 

11.  (1896)     Leopold  Hervieux,  Fahulistes  Latins,  Vol. 

IV,  pp.  92-106. 

12.  (1900)     Suchier  und   Birch-Hirschfeld,    Geschichte 

der  Franzosischen  Litteratur,  p.  171. 

13.  (1902)     Gustav   Grober,    Franzosische    Litteratur, 

pp.  856-857,  932,  933-934,  990-991. 

E.     re;  VIEWS. 

1.  (1890)     B.  Haureau,    in   thQ  Jotirnal  des  Savants, 

Annie  1890,  pp.  113-120. 

2.  (1890)     Anonymous,  in   Athenaetmi,    July-Decem- 

ber, 1890,  p.  121,  col.  2— p.  122,  col.  2. 

3.  (1890)     Anonymous,    in    Saturday    Review,    Vol. 

LXIX  (1890),  p.    167,  col.  1— p.  168,  col.  1. 

4.  (1890)     J.    S.    Attwood,    Nicholas   Bozon,   in   the 

Athenaeum,  July-December,  1890,  p.  163,  col.  3 
— p.  164,  col.  1. 


83 


5.  (1890)     Lucy  Toulmin  Smith,  Nicholas  Bozon,  in 

the   Athenaeum,    July-December,   1890,  p.  288, 
col.  3. 

6.  (1890)     Joseph  Jacobs  in  the  Folk-Lore  Journal, 

1890,  pp.  270-271. 

7.  (1890)     M.  W.    in   Le   Moyen   Age,  Vol.    Ill,    pp. 

156-159. 

8.  (1891)     E.  Sidney  Hartland,  Report  on  Folk-Tale 

Research,    1889-1890,     in     Folk-Lore,    Vol.    II 
(1891),  pp.  99-119.     See  p.  112. 

9.  (1891)     Kn.     in     Literaj-isches     Centralhlatt    filr 

Deutschland,  1891,  pp.  114-115. 

10.  1892-95)     Ernest  Lan^lois,  in  Kritischer  Jahreshe- 

richt,  etc.,  I,  Jahrgangr  (1890),  p.  430. 

11.  (1892-95)     Max   Pr.  Mann,  Physiologus   in   Krit- 

ischer Jahreshericht,  etc.,  I,   Jahrg-ang-   (1890), 
p.  433. 


84 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  OF 
WHOLE   DISSERTATION. 


Prefatory  Note 

Part  I. 

Introductory 

Sources  of  the  Individual  Fables 

a.  Fables  Derived  from  Marie  de  France,  or  a  Com- 

mon Source       .     .     .     .     , 

b.  Fables  Derived  from  Odo  of  Shering-ton   .     .     .     . 

c.  Fable  Derived  from  Miscellaneous  Sources    .     .     . 

d.  Fables  from  Unknown  Sources 

Part  II. 

a.  An  English  Fable  Collection  as  a  Source      .     .     . 

b.  The  Animal  Kpic  as  a  Source 

c.  A  French  Fable  Collection  as  a  Source      .     .     .     . 

d.  The  Treatment  of  the  Moral  of  the  Fables  .     .     . 

Conclusion 

Bibliography 


85 


BIOGRAPHY. 


I,  Philip  Warner  Harry,  was  born  near  Baltimore, 
August  9,  1877.  In  the  year  1893  I  entered  the  Prepar- 
atory Department  of  Georgetown  College,  Ky.,  and  in 
the  following  year  was  admitted  into  Georgetown  Col- 
lege, where  I  remained  for  two  years.  In  October,  1895, 
I  came  to  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  from  which 
institution  I  received  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  in 
June,  1898.  The  following  year  I  pursued  gradute 
work  in  the  Universit}^  selecting  French  as  m}^  princi- 
pal subject,  Spanish  and  History  as  my  first  and  second 
subordinate  subjects  respectively.  These  studies  I  pur- 
sued without  interruption  for  two  3^ears,  when  I 
accepted  the  position  of  instructor  in  Modern  Languages 
in  the  University  of  Maine.  In  the  Autumn  of  1902,  I 
returned  to  Johns  Hopkins  University  in  order  to  com- 
plete my  course. 

I  have  derived  the  greatest  benefit  from  having 
heard  the  lectures  of  Dr.  Armstrong  on  Old  French 
Phonology  and  Morpholog3S  of  Prof.  Warren  of  Yale 
on  Old  French  literature ;  of  Dr.  Ogden  on  Modern 
French  literature,  and  of  Prof.  Marden  on  Spanish  lit- 
erature. My  especial  thanks  are  due  to  Dr.  Keidel  who 
has  greatl3^  aided  me  in  m}^  work  in  Fable  Literature ; 
to  Prof.  Elliott  I  am  indebted  for  the  inspiration,  the 
encouragement  and  the  helpful  guidance  that  I  have 
received  in  connection  with  my  studies  at  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University. 

Bai^timore:,  May  1,  1903. 

or  r»i 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

This  Dook  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed.                        [ 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

LU    4IS/Z80 

BEC^  1  fc     nrp  e 

'*7/^ 

■^  ■■■'     viXf  ^ 

'2  -2   p^^-f^ 

] 

1 

T  r>  01    .in^  0  '«Q                                General  Library 

